sexual history of rape victims

[dorade]

As I understand it, judges have the discretion to allow the defence to question a rape complainant on her sexual history. (Please correct me if that is not correct).

Can anyone explain to me why judges need this discretion and under what circumstances, if any, the use of it could be justified?

Two false allegations a month. 24 a year. There are estimated 80000 rapes a year in the UK. I'll repeat that. Eighty fucking Thousand.

Oh and that Newsbeat article shows exactly where you are coming from. It was grossly innaccurate reporting by someone who has form for this.

It doesn't say two a week, it says two a month according to your previous post?

bunnylion that is what I was told by a solicitor who specialises in dealing with false allegations. For a male friend who I was supporting through a false allegation, it was actually a case of a seduction, planned by her, going wrong, and her trying to wriggle out of being seen as a bad person for trying to seduce someone else's husband. It turned out that she had also made previous false allegations against teachers, doctors (from her time sectioned at a mental health insitutition) university tutors and university students. So shall we add to your bingo, and include mental health issues?

And why no DM links allowed - the DM may be a paper that delights in highlighting the stories of false allegations, but that doesn't make the fact that false allegations do happen any less true.

As I said - we need a rational discussion about rape and false allegations, without being shouted down by those who want to pretend that false allegations don't exist. Perhaps if we could get some understanding of why false allegations occur, we could do something as a society to removing women feeling the need to make false allegations, and thereby actually making it more likely that genuine rape victims will be believed.

Yes, a typo by me. But 24 people going to prison each year due to false accusations would be 24 too many.

I'd like the discussion on false rape allegations to be proportional to the number of rapes so 24/80000 discussions would be fair. Not every single one.

I'd also like to talk about how damaging men lying about rape is. Because that is where the real damage comes. Men denying that they rape women, when they do and they know they do. Men have done this for centuries. The old "No means Yes" bullshit. The "I didn't know, you didn't say no" bullshit. They knew. They can read body language, they just don't give a shit. They even had us believe you couldn't be raped within marriage.

Those 24 only accounts for those where it can be proven to be a false allegation. Many more not guilty verdicts will not be counted as a false allegation because they cannot be proven to be a false allegation.

Similarly, the 80,000 is an estimate and the actual number could be more or less, we will never know the true figure, personally, I think 80,000 is less than the actual figure.

However, I do feel that cases have to be tested vigorously in court. Sadly, that means that victims will get upset and will probably feel violated all over again.
It isn't that often that judges allow disclosure of sexual history as the relevance has to be thought to be very significant.

Imagine that your son/ brother/ father/ uncle is accused of raping a woman. He admits to consensual sex with the woman. The woman has no injuries or medical evidence to suggest that it wasn't consensual. The defence believe that the woman has invented the rape as her partner found out and she doesn't want to lose him. You believe your relative and are terrified of him going to prison for several years for something that he might not have done. Would you want the woman to be throughly cross examined including exposure of the fact that she has had many many one night stands, but usually not whilst in a long term relationship, therefore no need for rape allegations on those occasions. Or would you rather she wasnt throughly cross examined? Would you be happy for your loved one to go to prison knowing that the jury did not have the full facts?

How many men avoid consequence completely each year by a false claim of innocence? Are you equally as concerned about those?

Yes I am equally concerned, probably more so.
Any miscarriage of justice is tragic for the individuals involved. But surely it's the jury's role to reach a verdict WITH the full relevant information. It's down to the judge to decide what is deemed relevant.

I couldn't care less if a woman's had many one night standa - it is totally irrelavent to whether she's been raped or not.

When it's her word against his regarding the issue of consent, how do you work out who is telling the truth without disclosing relevant information?
What if there are no injuries, no signs of it being anything but consensual?
What if she has made an identical allegation in similar circumstances previously?
Do you not think that any of that is relevant?

How odd, you seem to believe that the statistics under-represent the number of false allegations, yet over-represent the number of rape cases .

I said that I believe there were more rapes than 80,000 each year.

This is what CPS says about previous accusations being relevant.

Previous convictions / previous reports of rape
44. There has been a great deal of work undertaken in relation to challenging the myths and stereotypes about what constitutes rape, as to who can be a victim and how victims behave. An example of a myth is that a person is unlikely to have been the victim of a sexual offence on more than one occasion. In fact, research indicates that a person may be targeted precisely because s/he is vulnerable, and as a result there is every possibility that s/he may have been a victim of rape or other violence on more than one occasion.
45. In some of the cases referred to the DPP, investigators and prosecutors sought to rely on a previous complaint of rape or domestic violence which had not resulted in a prosecution as evidence that the allegation under consideration was false. There was a lack of appreciation that the earlier allegation had no probative value unless it could be shown not merely that there had been no prosecution but that it was also provably false.

46. In addition, if the victim had made a number of other complaints in the past there was evidence that this became a self-fulfilling prophecy: each time she complained, investigators or prosecutors would see that this was perhaps the third or fourth time she had reported that she had been raped and would regard that as evidence of unreliability, thereby ensuring that the present allegation would not be prosecuted either.

Imagine that your daughter / sister/ mother / aunt is raped. He claims the sex was consensual. She has no injuries or medical evidence to suggest that it wasn't consensual.

Considering it is estimated that approximately 1 in 3 women / girls have been the victim of rape or sexual assault then it could well be that I myself represent the 1 in 3. Perhaps I don't need to imagine that it is my daughter / sister / mother etc.
Just because something has affected somebody personally, that doesn't necessarily mean that logic goes out of the window. Evidence and cross examination should be thorough for both the victim and the accused. Past history for both should be disclosed if deemed relevant enough to the potential verdict.
Victim support, rape crisis centres and relevant organisations should prepare the alleged victim for what might happen in court and ensure that appropriate support is in place to see her through the process. I also think that in some cases the potential for emotional damage caused during a trial might outweigh the chance of successfully getting a conviction. The chance of success in light of the evidence available should be discussed at length with the victim so she can reach an informed decision about whether to pursue the case.

Are victims of GBH regularly grilled about their previous experiences in fights? Would the fact that they trained in martial arts or boxing (this equated with being 'experienced' in violence) count against them?

Would a victim of id fraud be rigorously cross examined about their previous transaction history? Have they ever given their credit card details to someone on the phone when making a purchase?

No not really, not unless there is a good reason for doing so. And yet, strangely, we don't automatically doubt the victims of those crimes and assume that their past history is relevant, even though in a few cases it might actually be important.

You obviously don't work in The criminal justice system, otherwise you would realise that most trials take place because there is some doubt in the evidence (there are some defendants who go ahead with a trial despite overwhelming evidence).
Somebody who says he is the victim of GBH would be cross examined if the defence finds out that he has a history of violence and the defendant argues that the supposed victim was actually the instigator and it was an act of self defence.
And victims of ID fraud do have to prove that they have not been negligent in causing the identity fraud. Banks often find reasons for why the cardholder has been contributory to the fraud.
So, I don't see the difference.
The court system is there to consider all relevant evidence and to decide what is deemed relevant.

So if you are more worried about men avoiding the consequences of raping women why are you on here arguing the toss about false allegations?

Your actions are belying your words.

Is it wrong to not want innocent people in prison? Is it wrong to think that the court should do its job properly and ensure that all relevant material is made available to the jury?
I am in no doubt that lots of guilty rapists walk free from courts every year, which is obviously disturbing, but I don't think that this should prevent all evidence from being made available to the jury. If we are not going to present material deemed relevant then we don't need a jury.
Do you know how many cases expose details of an alleged victims sexual history?
The argument isn't whether men are getting away with stuff because the court expose irrelevant details of a woman's sexual past. The question should be why is the conviction rate so low for rape cases? What can the police do to secure better evidence? How many cases are being brought to trial without a realistic chance of conviction? How many women are traumatised by giving evidence in cases where the chances of conviction are very very tiny? How can these women be supported better?

No of course its not wrong to not want innocent people in prison. But its not wrong to want guilty people in prison either. You said you were more worried about thousands of men evading justice yet you are arguing about a tiny tiny percentage of men who may be imprisoned falsely. As horrific as that is, it is not on the same scale as the number of women who will never ever get justice.

"The question should be why is the conviction rate so low for rape cases? What can the police do to secure better evidence? How many cases are being brought to trial without a realistic chance of conviction? How many women are traumatised by giving evidence in cases where the chances of conviction are very very tiny? How can these women be supported better?" You are right. And the root of all those issues is not women lying about being raped it is men lying about what rape is, lying about raping, lying about what a victim should look like and behave like. That is the problem.