The police seem to be unwilling to investigate allegations of rape. Why?

[Solopower]

It seems that the police are still not taking rape seriously as a crime. Either they don't believe the victim, or they just think it would be too difficult to prove - but why are they letting (mainly) women down like this?
www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jun/08/metropolitan-police-rape-victims-detective-arrested?newsfeed=true

niceguy2 No one has suggested watering down that principal. They've suggested that currently juries sometimes believe absurd things from defendants that they wouldn't find credible if it were some other crime. And I say they look for evidence that the woman continually and forcefully said no, rather than that the man knew he had consent (which is what the law actually requires). Other crimes are prosecuted when there is no evidence except the testimony of a victim and a defendant. Criminal damage and theft are frequently prosecuted on such grounds.

Yes but NameGames, there are no witnesses. So the jury cannot convict based upon the defendant's word alone. It's the way our court system works

The victim is a witness. They're testimony is treated as evidence, if it is such to convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt then they can convict.

"Actually alisonjayne, there's a 90%+ chance that your son did"

I've often seen this repeated and it is a misinterpretation /misre of the statistics.

/misrepresentation *

Alisonjayne- were you there? How do you know he is innocent?

" and the evidence is 100% clear that this was rape"

out of interest, what was the evidence that made it clear?

i believe in Karma though

sorry, that question was RE the rape at the vicarage mentioned earlier. I have read up on it now and can understand whyit was clear.

Namegames, i find that incredibly hard to believe that even criminal damage and theft are convicted solely on the evidence of the victim. I would suspect that in the case of theft there would be other evidence such as being found with the item by the police or CCTV. Ditto with criminal damage. If there was an independent witness then of course that would be different.

But I doubt I would get very far if I called the police up and claimed had scratched my car. They'd want evidence such as a witness, fingerprints, admission of guilt. That would be supporting evidence. If it was my word against his....i doubt they'd even arrest him, let alone charge him.

yes i agree, because the girl is a victim and rightly so if its TRUE , they brought my son in questioned him for about 6 hours then let him go and gave him a date for 6 weeks later to go back evrytime hes been rebailed and he cant take much more, and i am getting angry now. when i find out if hes being charged or if its going to court or if hes not being charged, i am going to press charges on her and drag her name through the mud and make her feel how bad he has but i doubt she will because she clearly does not have a any humanity

to convict a rapist you must have hard evidence, dna and the rest otherwise too many innocent people will be punished for something they did not do, and thats very wrong. a womans word is not enough, thats the facts, and im not saying all women lie of course not, but some do, as i know!

I'd even go as far as to say that chances are that most women are telling the truth. Hence why I think that false allegations small as they may be are having a big disproportionate affect on rape trials.

However, isn't it a fundamental principle of our legal system that it is better than 10 guilty people go free than an innocent one goes to prison? (or words to that effect).

The million dollar question is how do you significantly increase the conviction rate without undermining that principle?

sorry nice guy if that one innocent person as you say goes to prison, thats wrong so i dont agree about that. As rape is so serious you need proof and evidence to convict, if police took all womens words and most prob are telling truth but some arent, that disgusting! somebodys life is ruined over it when the woman is actually the sick one in some cases, not all.

", i find that incredibly hard to believe that even criminal damage and theft are convicted solely on the evidence of the victim. I would suspect that in the case of theft there would be other evidence such as being found with the item by the police or CCTv"

But it will still come down to the same principal, it will be only the victims word that they had not consented to the taking of the item, same as with most rape cases the accused won't deny sex has taken place just that it was consensual.
The difference being that there isn't a history of juries ignoring common sense and believing consent was present for theft offences in the same way there is for rape so most accused people won't try that tactic as its doomed to fail.

Alison- rapists dont have horns on them or flashing lights saying 'here's a rapist'

dont you think all mums think 'my boy would never do that'?

you say courts/juries shouldnt take one person's word against another's but that is exactly what you are doing

the police are doing it right for now they want hard evidence as some women lie, well thats fair enough, if you were raped there will be evidence, plain and simple. if your making it up there wont be!

and dont insult my intelligence either.

Alison, i think you may have misread what I said. I'm in agreement with you.

Mayor, without meaning to go completely offtopic consent in cases of theft is very different. Theft is usually done by people unknown to the victim. Chances are the person who breaks into my home and steals my phone will not be known to me.

So it's going to be hard to convince a magistrate or juror that I willingly gave my phone away to a random stranger. They may as well go with the 'i bought it off a man in the pub' defence.

However, let's say the accused was say my exGF and she claimed I'd given it to her as a present, the only way the prosecution could then prove theft is by supporting evidence such as fingerprints, CCTV etc.

It is the same principle and in theory the burden of proof is to the same high standards. That said, we're all human and chances are there's a lot higher burden of proof required to send someone to prison for rape than nicking a mobile phone.

well said niceguy 2 i agree with you

when you living with it and you know its wrong its completely different. come october i will share the good news anyhow that no charges will be brought on my son, and the simple reason for that is that the girl is a compulsive liar and is not right in the head.