Changes in how rape will be investigated- about time!

[AWholeLottaNosy]

I just read this and I was really pleased. It's about time rape was investigated and prosecuted differently considering the appalling rape conviction rate we have in this country. Imagine there will be an outcry from all the MRAs, but, I think it's very good news...

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/11375667/Men-must-prove-a-woman-said-Yes-under-tough-new-rape-rules.html

First, it is impossible to prove someone said 'yes'. If a woman says 'yes' and then make a complaint it is still one person's word against another.

Realistically, I think it is difficult to prosecute any crime if it comes down to one person's word against another. I can't see this new guidance leading to prosecutions in the absence of circumstantial or witness evidence.

Guilty before proven innocent.

Ah it's our little goady namechanger from the thread about Katie price isn't it? Welcome to FWR

Realistically, I think it is difficult to prosecute any crime if it comes down to one person's word against another. I can't see this new guidance leading to prosecutions in the absence of circumstantial or witness evidence.

It depends on the other circumstances, the evidence given by each of them and the jury's evaluation of credibility. If the jury believes one person and doesn't believe another, they can convict. Not everyone is good at giving evidence or being cross-examined. It's not just a question of making up a story and the court shrugging and saying "oh well that's alright then".

I can foresee all manner of unintended consequences with this, as with other changes to legal conventions that have lasted for centuries (i.e. the double jeopardy scenario, right to silence, detention without trial, private/undisclosed evidence etc.).

All changed for 'good reasons' and with 'decent intentions' but, with each one, turning the ratchet one tooth further away from individual rights and granting ever more power to the State.

Once a principle has been broken, precedent is set and others will go the same way. For centuries the onus was always on the State proving their case against someone; increasingly the burden is shifting the other way and I don't like the direction of travel.

Please don't engage with Wilts, from previous threads, they're just a goady little fucker.

Wilts, get off my thread, you're not welcome here.

I REPEAT, DO NOT ENGAGE ( unless of course, you enjoy a bunfight, I know some of you do..)

Once a principle has been broken

What are you talking about?

Sorry cross-post with Nosy. Don't bother answering Wilts.

Buffy I'm not a criminal lawyer so I don't have an informed view. I think the low rate of conviction for rape cases indicate they tend not to believe the woman in those cases. In cases that are not about rape, I don't think juries are more disposed to believe men than women, but that's just my gut feeling.

House - could that not be because most people are straight, rather than gay, so if a straight man is raped the jury is less likely to believe that it was consensual?

I think with male victims it's much more clear cut and the usual stereotypes don't apply. So you couldn't argue, well, he was wearing tight shorts so I couldn't help myself type of thing.

Also male rape is typically more violent so there is more objective evidence of lack of consent.

Is it really more violent, nosy? Partner rape too?

www.breitbart.com/london/2015/01/29/the-new-rape-rules-which-will-infantilise-women-and-criminalise-innocent-men/

House:

In 2011 the conviction rate for rape against a female was 39.7%, just below the 45.2% rate for rape against a male. The aggregate rate across all sexual offences was 60.3%.