All current rape and sexual assault cases to be reviewed - BBC

[UpABitLate]

here

This raises a massive amount of questions and will be taken by many quarters to mean that most accusations are malicious and that lots of men are in prison for nothing / can be sent to prison on a "woman's word" (the evidence is fitted to make sure of that).

There is a line in the article which says:

"It also begs the question of why the review is to rape and sexual assault cases when many believe the problems of disclosure are systemic, he added."

I think this just shows up that our justice system has deep issues and worst in the area of sexual offences. We seem unable to "get it right" and the entire thing is already balanced on a foundation of laws evolved from property law, a societal tendancy to disbelieve victims, and here by procedural cock-ups.

I also note that new evidence that weakens cases does not mean it didn't happen - but of course this is how it will be taken. Undermining victims massively.

And yes - why only these types of cases when the problem is systemic? Because of an underlying perception, again, that women and girls lie (them being the majority of victims in court).

I think we need an overhaul of how approach sex crime. Trying to tackle it in our adversarial system, with the cultural underpinnings we have, is just not working. These crimes are effectively legal, the difficult in prosecuting is so high. It's only really if there's lots of evidence of other simultaneous crimes (other physical harm from violence, threats with weapons that are found, murder) that our laws are suitable.

Other countries have an inquisitorial approach, maybe we need to look at that.

And the agencies involved in all of this need to sort their shit out. On the one hand we have withheld evidence, on the other hand we have warboys. The system is not working for lots of people.

Hairy, yes being accused of rape is perhaps except for murder the worst crime you can be accused of.

Leaving celebrity like Mike Tyson out of it, it causes a massive amount of stress, its a long drawn out process, all support is for the victim, loss of friendships, job, marriage.... its not pretty.

Alison Saunders, the DPP, has issued instructions that the number of rape convictions must increase. Sadly, the approach being taken by the police and CPS seems to be to prosecute in cases where there is only a marginal chance of a conviction and to improve their success rate by suppressing (or not even looking for) evidence which does not support the woman's claims.

I imagine many of the people commenting here have fathers, brothers, husbands, partners or sons - how happy would you be to see them imprisoned and their name blackened for ever on the word of one witness, where evidence which could have acquitted them was kept secret?

And KateSheppard, thanks for your brief but valuable demonstration of why sarcasm does nothing to advance an argument.

"women do lie about rape"

NAWALT, PrincessoftheSea.

How do you know that they lie/distort? Did you view the CCTV?

Or did the woman get badgered by friends/family/the police until they acquiesced that it "probably wasn't that bad" and "I'm sure he didn't mean it" and "we were both drinking" and "he's usually such a lovely fellow" and "I'm sure it was all just a big misunderstanding".

Did you know that women have been charged with false reporting when they have refused to retract an allegation that the police did not want to pursue? Did you know that women have been imprisoned for alleging - and refusing to retract the allegation of - rape? Here are three stories of women being punished for variously, reporting rape, refusing to retract an allegation and (unbelievably) falsely retracting an allegation. Can't get it right for being wrong, can we.

Marie:
www.propublica.org/article/false-rape-accusations-an-unbelievable-story

Sarah:
www.theguardian.com/society/2012/mar/13/woman-retracted-rape-claim-husband

Sarah tells her story:
www.theguardian.com/society/2010/nov/26/accused-husband-rape-jail

Prospect Park:
www.nytimes.com/2018/01/09/nyregion/prospect-park-rape-solved-dna.html

"It does sound as if there has been a consistent and systematic police culture of "hiding and losing" evidence which might help the defence case, and that desperately needs to be exposed" actually I would say what needs investigated is WHY police feel that is necessary - I strongly suspect because - like women especially victims, they're sick to the back teeth of seeing GUILTY men go free!

And don't give me the "ruins their lives" bollocks - because there's plenty of evidence that it doesn't. Wives and families stand by them, they rarely lose their jobs...

Princessofthesea - you have proof that women lie/exaggerate?

"Interesting job you must have." Quite!

And with later comments - if I were your employer I'd be concerned you were no longer unbiased and fit for the role.

Barracker - I agree, I can't remember watching/reading of a rape case failing where I didn't think it was a case of a rapist getting off on a "technicality"

WhollyFather

“Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit, but the highest form of intelligence.”

Perhaps you should try it.

I don't understand this.
if previous sexual history of the victim is (should be) relevant then why is not disclosing messagages about said sexual history of the victim an issue?

I am puzzled. Some men early went to jail because evidence of their innocence wasn't disclosed. Some men were in jail because evidence of their innocence wasn't disclosed. Some men may be in jail because evidence of their innocence wasn't disclosed
No, this is not the case.
Evidence is being disclosed late so men are going further through the process than needed.
Actually though it's showing the process does work because when the evidence us disclosed the charges are dropped.
I'd really like to see something that's not anecdata about men's lives being ruined. It seems more like women's lives are ruined- I read a blog the other day about a woman who lost her job after alleging rape against a co worker. I have read numerous accounts of rape victims committing suicide when the person they said raped them was acquitted. In the current Larry Nassar case, some of the victims have killed themselves and so have some of their family members.
Bloody fed up of this "rape allegations are the worst thing EVER". It just goes to show how many people are totally unable to think of anything other than the impact on the man.

I obviously cannot go into much details about the cases I deal with,but as an example I recently dealt with a case where the accused had been on honeymoon in Hawaii at the time of the alleged assault. So sometimes there are very straight forward evidence available.

You can choose not to believe that false accusations happens. You can also choose to think its not that bad for an innocent man to be accused of rape. Let's just hope it does not happen to a man close to you, you may change your mind when your DH is suspended from work pending investgation into sexual misconduct. Few recovers from this in my experience. And also don't think it cannot happen to your loved on.

Quentin, its not that people are not able to think about nothing but the impact on the man. It means people are able to think more than one thought.

You can also choose to think its not that bad for an innocent man to be accused of rape.
Do you think it's "not that bad" for a woman to be raped then watch her rapist get away with It? And left with the feeling she's not believed/people think she's lying?
96% of reported rapes don't result in conviction. I'm sure you don't think 96% of rapes are reported by liars? There are an awful lot of rapists walking free.

princess ok then, what do you think should be done about the rape victims who don't see justice and the majority of rapists who get away with It?

Here are my ideas: (this is often a thread killer, if so I apologise)

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.

I might also add definition of a mandatory minimum sentence for sexual assault/rape (so people found guilty cant get a suspended sentence) and getting rid of sentences running concurrently. (So someone like warboys doesnt end up serving the sentence for just one rape).

I've personally been on the periphery of three false rape allegations in my life. Thankfully none of them affected me directly. One was definitely malicious (the woman was prosecuted) and the other two were possibly 'misunderstandings' (I'm being generous). In the case of the malicious allegation, the man in question, a friend of mine was suspended from work, lost out on his dream assignment and a promotion and his wife left him. (Thankfully they got back together afterwards)

What is the point of that anecdote? I've heard it said, even by people on this site that false allegations are so rare that they effectively never happen and I've been accused of thread derailment for even bringing them up. The point is that there are three categories of rape accusations: actual rapes (the majority), misunderstandings (i.e man had an honest belief there was consent) and malicious allegations. Now I fully accept that the majority of rape allegations are true, however I struggle to believe it's 96%. (I think that's the figure most often used).

One of the reasons why the police and the CPS may have felt motivated to pervert the course of justice by suppressing evidence might be because of the constant narrative that all men are rapists and by not prosecuting every single allegation they are complicit in this because of, you know, patriarchy and stuff.

Rape and sexual assault are incredibly serious crimes, nobody denies that, but carrying on as if all men are rapists, that every allegation is automatically true and that any man accused should just get over it because a false allegation isn't as bad as being raped actually minimises the seriousness of the crime.

On another thread I have categorically said I believe those convicted of rape should serve full life sentence. It's so hard to get a conviction that for someone to be convicted it's highly likely

They are repeat offenders - even if they haven't been caught before

That the nature of the offence is particularly vile, eg involving a high level of violence, premeditation etc

Princess - you talk of people being narrow minded yet seem to show no empathy or sympathy for victims.

It's actually not uncommon for victims to be mistaken on dates/times - it's a traumatic event, doesn't necessarily mean the offence didn't occur.

Clearly most people agree change is needed, but some people realise the system is broken and others want to blame women.

Now I fully accept that the majority of rape allegations are true, however I struggle to believe it's 96%.
Even if 20% of allegations are false (the CPS estimate at 4% by the way, in line with other crimes) that means in around 75% of reported rapes, there was a crime and the criminal got away with it.
I think (can't remember the exact figs) there were something like 88,000 rapes reported last year. So 66,000 rapes where the rapist is still out there, probably raping other women.
I think that's a bigger problem than the anecdotal man with a "ruined life".

Graphista, what do I say exactly which means I do not have sympathy/ empathy for rape victims? Don't put words into my mouth.

Quentin

Firstly, it's possible to care about more than one thing at once.

Secondly you have broken the allegations down in a binary way again: true or malicious. You have completely excluded the category of men who had an honest belief that they had consent.

Now clearly that belief has to be honest, but in those circumstances, no crime has been commited.

Women.

If you are raped, don't report.

Because women always lie.
Because you even thinking of accusing your rapist of that crime will destroy his life forever.
Because you probably brought it on yourself anyway.
Because you were wearing a short skirt.
Because you've had sex before.
Because you have had a trauma reaction that means you don't act in ways society deems ok for victims of rape.
Because you led him on by being female in public space.
Because even if you do think of destroying your life by reporting, your rapist will, on balance of probabilities, get away with it and do it do another woman anyway.

Just put up and shut up women, always.

Men.

Feel free to rape, you're almost certain to get away with it, even if you do it for years and women report.

Yay justice!

You have completely excluded the category of men who had an honest belief that they had consent.
So from the perspective of the victim, the man's honest belief is not relevant. She has still been raped.
It's a bit like manslaughter vs murder. Victim is still dead regardless of the intent of the killer.

What would you do to help the tens of thousands of women a year who are rape victims get justice?

I actually have a big issue with the "reasonable belief" clause. There is nothing like it in any other crime and it provides a huge get out of jail card. How does the court prove a belief?
It works against lack of capacity due to drink/drugs, as the defendant can just say he believed the victim wasn't that drunk.
Why can't the requirement be that men need to exercise some due care and attention before penetrating someone?

I had a reasonable belief that he wouldn't mind me stealing his car, your honor. That makes it OK, right?

Quentin

The requirement to establish intent is a fundamental part of a huge number of crimes. It's certainly not limited to rape.

A man having an honest belief that he received consent is the method they use in rape cases to prove he had no intention and therefore did not commit a crime. (Clearly the key part of that is that it has to be an honest belief.)

If you have a problem with that then I really don't know where else to go with this. Your objecting to a legal principle that underpins virtually the entire justice system. I'd be interested to see how the justice system would work in your ideal world if you got rid of the requirement for mens rea in crimes?

but then with some crimes, taxes for example, intent doesn't play a part. even if you don't intent to break the law, or your accountant breaks the law on your behalf. you will still be liable.

How do you judge if someone os too drunk to give consent, particularly if you are very drunk yourself. Of course if someone is barely conscious, they cannot five consent, but how would you decide?

You cannot compare rape to any other crime. Its mostly one persons word/ belief against anothers unfortunately.