Samuel Armstrong cleared of Rape.

[Londoner11]

twitter.com/SkyNewsBreak/status/943848247310934021

A third verdict is another interesting option. I've only ever heard of a sexual harm prevention order in the case of that awful man who was put on one by a judge after a 'not guilty' verdict because he was a clear risk to the public from what he'd said to a psychiatrist.

There has to be a way forward because currently the amount of innocent woman raped on a daily basis to ensure no innocent man goes to jail is really not acceptable collateral damage.

This is the one:

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-37131460

The amount of uproar about that WTAF as well.
Basically the conclusion I've come to over the past week is that most people see women and children as acceptable collateral damage to ensure there is no possibility of jailing a man for a crime he didn't commit.
Strangely as a society we are happy to take this risk for other crimes but for rape, it's absolutely unacceptable.

QuentinSummers

Who ARE these people? Men I know thought that bloke should be on a section.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/2685655-This-is-not-about-rape-its-about-civil-liberties?pg=1&order=

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/2657574-Having-to-give-police-24-hours-notice-before-sex-is-not-having-less-freedom-than-if-you-were-in-prison

I'm feeling a bit sore about this due to getting into a debate with someone I thought was a decent bloke and him admitting he thought the risk of allowing serial rapists to commit future attacks was less serious than the risk of jailing or even accusing an innocent man.
The absolute lack of empathy for how being raped (or even fear of being raped) affects women is chilling

QuentinSummers are there ever successful convictions for rape within marriage?

I know of at least one - and it was reported at the time in the regions news section of the BBC website. But in order to protect her anonymity, there was no mention in any of the news media that the woman was his wife - although there were no other aggravating factors, he was already someone the papers were interested in.

He pleaded guilty at the first opportunity and got an immediate custodial sentence. Afterwards he returned back home to live with her. The last I heard they were still married and still living together.

admitting he thought the risk of allowing serial rapists to commit future attacks was less serious than the risk of jailing or even accusing an innocent man

Wow. Just wow.

Quentin I don't want to re read those threads, I know shitty things were said about woman.

We've just GOT to do better. We're supposed to be a civilised society our figures for rape are appalling.

I'm not as clued up about the figures with adult woman as I am for child abuse, it always amazes me though when safeguards are improved for children, we're beginning to get somewhere and then someone complains about their 'rights' imagine being so narcissistic that you care more about yourself than an abused child?

sawdustformypony

That's an interesting point that we wouldn't actually be able to Google convictions for rape within marriage due to anonymity laws. Interesting that he pleaded guilty rather than being found guilty.

Very sad she's gone back to him.

The crux of the problem is that most sexual acts take place in private - even rape - so proof is very hard to obtain. There are only two people involved and it is one word against the other. The only valid evidence might be that of force - i.e. evidence of injury of some kind to the victim.

I no more want a man to be wrongly convicted than I want a woman to suffer a sexual assault and the perpetrator go free. Both are fundamentally wrong. And the idea that a man should face years in jail on the "balance of probabilties" is shocking. A life ruined on the basis of guesswork. Equally it is dreadful that someone who has committed rape should go free.

Cases of rape are seldom clear cut and a sense of outrage on behalf of a female alleged victim should not lead to a dilution of the rules of proof that are the basis of our system of justice.

In this particular case it is not to the young man's credit that he uses his Westminster office for sex, but there is a difference between lack of judgement and rape.

No-one knows the truth except the two people involved.

I no more want a man to be wrongly convicted than I want a woman to suffer a sexual assault and the perpetrator go free
Right. So given 93% of men reported do go free, that seems like women are getting the shitty end if the stick with the current situation.
How do you suggest we improve things?

Very sad she's gone back to him

It was a complicated story. Upon his release he went back to her.
Neither of them were interested in divorce proceedings. As I recall, it was his birthday just ahead of sentencing - and she bought him a very nice present. She kept it at home with her until his release.

funny old world.

QuentinSummers - I do not have an answer to your question, which was the point of my post. Do you have an answer?

It is wrong that even one rapist should go free; but equally wrong that even one innocent person should be jailed.

Are you happy to see innocent people jailed and their lives ruined as collateral damage in the process of moving towards a fairer system? That is the real question that needs answering. I know that one answer is ....well women's lives are ruined by what happens to them. That does not make a miscarriage of justice right, for either a man or a woman.

It is a highly complex conundrum that needs calm reflection from legal brains with experience in how the law works. Our entirely justified outrage at a woman suffering an injustice does not move things forward.

WTAF

Interesting that he pleaded guilty rather than being found guilty

btw - I do know what you mean but from a legal point of view, being found guilty isn't an alternative to the defendant pleading guilty. So whether the Jury returns a guilty verdict or the defendant pleads guilty to the charge , in both cases the Court then proceeds to 'find' the defendant guilty. Just if you read references to defendants being found guilty - its for all guilty cases.

sawdustformypony thanks for that, that's interesting to know

I am already seeing Men who I thought were sensible saying how false rape accusations now seem common place.

We have made it (slightly) easier to prove ongoing abuse, including rape, within marriage under DV laws. But the abuser is generally prosecuted for patterns of behaviour rather than for a single rape. It's still dire but baby steps are being take in the right direction.

I think the main problem we still have is the single incident, "date rape" type of rape. Victims have no witnesses and can't prove any patterns of behaviour that could convince a jury to the reasonable doubt standard.

LangCleg

If other woman come forward while awaiting for trial can that then be used as evidence?

How horrible having to hope that someone else has been through the same experience to get justice.

mis I already suggested some upthread.
The man would have to explain what he did to actively get consent, rather than the victim defend why she didnt consent.
We could get rid of the "reasonable belief of consent" clause as it actively works against the lack of capacity clause (e.g through drink or drugs).
We could introduce a crime like "reckless penetration" or "penetrating without due care and attention" for cases where it seems the man did very little to get consent but rape can't be proved.
The court case could be heard by a panel of expert judges rather than a jury. The trial could be inquisitorial rather than adversarial (so more like an inquest or enquiry). This would also allow a wider range of verdicts.
We could use more sexual offence prevention orders where offenders are assessed as posing a risk to women, even if found not guilty.
We could change bail guidelines so men aren't hanging round for ages waiting for a charging decision and so the impact on innocent men is minimised.

There's actually lots we could do but instead a lot of men prefer to just accept that most rapists get off. Wonder why that is.

Very interested in the 'Not proven' verdict 'Langcleg' mentions. I think of the poor girl in the Ched Evans case and the young man in the case where that MP was accused of rape and think they must have felt doubly violated by the idea that their alleged attacker was not guilty. I do think that rape & sexually assault cases need to be treated differently to crimes like robbery as the conviction rates are so dire and it is so difficult to meet the burden of proof. I heard that the Met and a university were doing research into whether verdicts would be more accurate if the proof had to be around abuse rather than consent, which would mean you could look at imbalance of power etc. I never heard where it got to though. And I have wondered whether creating a backup charge of something like 'abusive sexual conduct' would mean that police would have the option of getting a softer conviction in the same way that they sometimes go for murder and manslaughter and get a manslaughter verdict but not guilty for murder. I know that rape is rape, but being pragmatic, surely some conviction is better than none.

The problem with rape cases is that unless it is a violent public attack (which so few rapes are) its almost impossible to prove beyond reasonable doubt. You are proving thoughts really, its always one word against another and in cases of rape the system works very much in favour of rapists.
I'm not sure how to solve it, I dont like the idea of balance of probability, because I dont like the idea of convicting innocent. Its so difficult because we need an entire overall of attitudes to rape, so many people are so much more concerned about men getting wrongfully convicted than women getting raped. So many men feel they are owed sex by women.
The major thing is that in all these cases the "proof of innocence" is that the women has previously shown an interest in sex with the man, or in the case of Ched Evans another man. People seem to "forget" or completely ignore the fact that a woman can change her mind at any point, or a woman may theoretically want sex with the man but not at the time of rape. I think it goes back to the "short skirt is asking for it" mentality, just a new way of phrasing that. If a woman shows an interest in sex it is unfair of her to then deny the man sex, how is he, a poor penis driven man, supposed to know that she no longer wants it? She is obviously trying to trick him into raping her etc. It is scary the number of people of my generation (early 20s) who have this sort of attitude.

Strangely suggesting some concrete things we could do appears to have scared some posters off

I have no legal training either but this We could introduce a crime like "reckless penetration" or "penetrating without due care and attention" for cases where it seems the man did very little to get consent but rape can't be proved. strikes me as a very good idea.

Strangely suggesting some concrete things we could do appears to have scared some posters off.

Now there's a surprise!

If Samuel Armstrong is innocent he has lost an awful lot- 150K in legal cost he needs to pay and a ruined career. Every DBS check will show he was acquitted of rape, would you employ him?