So what would need to happen for women to report rape and get convictions?

[sethstarkaddersmum]

?

what would need to change?
And how could it be got to change?

I'll start.

1. stricter guidelines on what you can ask a victim when cross-examining her and these guidelines actually being followed

1. better provision of rape crisis centres

1. Shooting most of the people who comment on CIF and those that press like on their comments.

I'm joking of course, but not quite.

Absolute anonymity for all parties in the trail until conviction (the rapist loses anonymity when convicted).
No reporting of rape trials in progress only when concluded.
Ban the Daily Mail from the UK mainland.

Instead of stricter guidelines on cross examining the witness how about questioning via proxy.

I.e. court appointed councillor / police liason gets asked questions who then asks the victim (but in a less direct way) and responds with the answers.

Wouldn't go for guidelines on what you can and cannot ask as you can't have a defence not being allowed to present all information.

Quicker bringing of trail to court.

Yes, I think prior complaints should be made available during the trial.

If the victim's sexual history is dragged up then why can the defendant's? Surely the fact that four previous girlfriends have made similar complaints (for example) DOES strengthen the current evidence being brought to the jury. It should be admissible.

(It would also encourage more people to report even if it never ended up at trial - as it could then be used as evidence in a future case at the very least and get justice for somebody)

there already are guidelines IIRC seeyou. Not allowed to ask about sexual history etc.

Thorough investigation into the police's handling of rape complaints and institutionalised changes put in place.

Immediate release of the woman jailed for retracting her allegation and apologies

Widespread information spreading campaign WRT teeny percentage of false allegations.

I think a hard-hitting TV drama about the experience of a woman who reports rape would be good - not necessarily encouraging at first, but in terms of changing opinions.

EVERY Jury on a rape case should have a session on Rape Myths 101 before hearing any evidence whatsoever.

why does the victim's sexual history being presented have to be allowed at all ?

why should we condone the idea that it makes the slightest bit of difference about whether this man is a rapist ??

It is outrageous if previous complaints are not admissible. Is that an absolute rule or at the judge's discretion? If several unrelated people make the same complaint about the same person it is ridiculous not to use them to back each other up. How did this work with Warboys?

sorry, just seen ele's post

knee-jerk from me

it it correct then that a woman's sexual history is not allowed in court ?

AF - just found this:

"Character of victim - previous sexual history
Sections 41-43 of the Youth Justice & Criminal Evidence Act 1999 (Archbold 8-123k-123q) came into effect on 4 December 2000. See R v Kevin John Cartwright, unreported, (2007). The sections restrict the circumstances in which evidence or questions about a complainant's sexual behaviour beyond the circumstances of the alleged offence can be introduced in rape or in certain other sexual offence trials. It is essential that prosecutors are robust in dealing with applications under section 41.

At the trial of a person charged with a sexual offence as defined by section 62 of the YJCEA 1999 (Archbold 8-55x) no evidence may be adduced or questions asked in cross-examination by or on behalf of the accused about any sexual behaviour of the complainant except with the leave of the court, (Archbold 8-123k-123q).

Such evidence will only be permitted if statutory criteria are met and the court considers that it may reach an unsafe conclusion on an issue to be decided in the case if such evidence were not to be heard. Any questions asked or evidence to be adduced must relate to a specific instance of behaviour."

from here

interesting article about how some barristers get around it.

thanks ele, fascinating (and scary)

as you can see, I am a total and complete law novice

prior convictions and allegations can't be used in court because it may sway the jury. they may convict on the "no smoke without fire" theory or worse still assume that just because he has done it before means he must therefore have done it this time.

this is wrong of course.

But surely this should work the same way for the victim.

whether i shagged 40 men who all held tickets in roder to form an orderly queue to come fuck me every which way, that doesn't mean that tonight i said and meant no.
if you can't convict based on prior form then surely you shouldn't aquit either.

me too AF. I wish we were fucking top notch lawyers though. Would love to see you do your thing in court :)

to clarify, I wish we were top notch lawyers, not that we were actually copulating with them.

I think a huge issue for women may be that they can be questioned over their previous sexual history which really has no bearing on the crime in question. That should not be allowed.

that report says that sexual history evidence is introduced into 75% of the trials they followed.

And that lawyers use "rhetorical devices" - I bet they do, the fuckers.

I would be very good in court

I argue a good argument

I am in the wrong profession

when i was on jury service for a rape trial they actually held the poor girls knickers up for the court to see.

it was absolutely horrific. i could have dried for her i really could.

why did they do that ?

for what fucking purpose ?

semen stains ?

a forensic report would tell them that

I think I'd be willing to get sent down for contempt of court by saying "What's that got to do with it?" at the start of every response to nonsensical questioning.

Rape myths to be explained in detail to every jury at the start of rape trials.