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.

The six other work colleagues who were drinking with them in the bar.

I was one of them.

Oh well then, if you've decided she wasn't raped then you must be right.

Me, five other eye witnesses and the police, yes.

And obviously you can prove no more drink was taken after they left the bar, right? You and your six colleagues know it was just a misunderstanding based on what you saw before she left with him?

No need to report. Silly misunderstanding. PP knows better, he saw her earlier that night.

No need for a jury when PP and his five work colleagues are around to point out it was just a misunderstanding.

WhenIreported

Yes because that was the woman's story as well. She never denied that consent was given, or that any further alcohol was consumed etc. She just told anyone who would listen that it 'wasnt valid' because she had been drinking. When it was pointed out to her that by that rule, she had also technically sexually assaulted the man, it didn't go down well.

Anyway, examples given.

If a woman who is capable of consenting then reports the act as rape then that ISN'T a "misunderstanding" it's a false rape allegation.

The first one, I can't comment on without having been there. Presumably your friend didn't notice he was fucking an unhappy woman?

And did either of your scenarios result in a conviction? I'm guessing not.

On the flip side, I remember reading a first-person account of being raped by a woman who was brutally raped in a dark alley by a guy she'd talked to in a bar earlier that evening. The defence argued that because she'd talked to him (cctv footage and witness statements) and some women liked rough sex (she was left bloodied and bruised by the assault that accompanied the rape) it was all consensual. The jury didn't convict.

(There's a case where an inquisitorial system might well work better. My understanding is at the moment the prosecution have no right to know what direction the defence will take things in - in this case, the prosecution might have been served better by being able to ask the woman whether in this case she was prepared to waive her right not to have her own past sexual history discussed, in order to establish that she had never, ever been interested in rough sex. But in the current system this would count as coaching the witness and wouldn't be allowed.)

Man and woman on date, go back to hers afterwards and go to bed together. Enthusiastic consent given, and man penetrates woman. During sexual act, woman decides she isn't happy any more and wants it to stop. However doesn't communicate in any way to the man. Next day she is upset and tells a friend, who encouraged her to report it.

I would be very sceptical if a man told me this had happened to him. I think it's more likely consent wasn't enthusiastic or the man decided to do something mid sex that the woman didn't want. And is now pretending she didn't say anything at the time.

If you weren't there, how would you know what actually happened? And if one if them is lying, who stands to benefit most from that? The man, who raped someone but through lying can get away with it? Or the woman, who for some reason decides to report a rape to the police, go through an intimate exam, get her behaviour and history questioned, all for the satisfaction of seeing an innocent man in court? (At a considerable risk that if it's discovered she's lying, she will be done for perverting the course of justice).

It's just flipping nonsensical. Apply some logical thought to the scenarios rather than just blanket assuming everything your mates tell you is fact. What are you, 5?

"PatriarchyPersonified Sat 27-Jan-18 14:33:51
Quentin

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

Also, with reference to the above ^

I call BS.

You're happy to argue until you're blue in the face about the things men might go through, but you haven't ONCE acknowledged my personal experience, that I have shared on this thread.

Or expressed empathy, understanding or concern for me as a rape victim.

You've made it quite clear why you're here, and it certainly isn't because you want to understand how rape affects women.

Quentin

The 'who benefits' line of reasoning in these circumstances is a tricky one. It assumes that all participants are completely rational actors who only make rational decisions. Sadly not always true, especially in emotionally charged situations.

Wow.

I really am invisible to you as a rape victim, aren't I PP?

@PatriarchyPersonified If you are seriously asserting that swathes of traumatised women is acceptable collateral damage as long as men believe consent occurred then you have a seriously wonky moral compass.

As to solutions I think legal aid to rape victims to at least pursue rapists in civil cases. I realise that isn’t really good enough, but it would change the cultural conversation around rape. More men would be found liable and couldn’t exactly parade themselves around as innocent furthermore it would provide some sort of closure to a victim that on the balance of probabilities they were believed over the rapist.

I think as the years rolled on the number of men falling foul of civil cases would change our culture for the better and lead to more realistic prospects for criminal convictions in the long run.

The 'who benefits' line of reasoning in these circumstances is a tricky one. It assumes that all participants are completely rational actors who only make rational decisions

Haha haha
Hahaha
That's hilarious.
Ok, so I can infer from that that men arent always rational in emotionally charged situations and may get carried away and not get consent? Then regret it and lie about it later?

whenI

I suspect that all rape victims are invisible to him.

Quentin absolutely nails it with the "who benefits?" question. (There's a wonderful Jackie Fleming cartoon of this, with a woman saying breezily to a man "Of course women don't report bad sex as rape just on a whim. We don't want to spend our whole bloody lives in court.")

Quentin

Clearly not. Please don't reverse the context of what I'm saying. Your suggesting that a woman has nothing to gain from a false rape allegation therefore any allegation is likely to be genuine.

That's only true if you believe that everyone is a rational actor and only makes 100% rational decisions.

I'm not a rape apologist, I'm not minimising rape. I'm just against replacing one injustice (that it's difficult for women to prove rape beyond reasonable doubt) with another injustice (presumed guilt of all men).

WhenIreported

I'm genuinely sorry that you have been the victim of an awful crime but I'm not sure what insisting that I say that to you has added to the discussion.

Are you suitably mollified? Can we now continue to have a sensible discussion?

Oh gosh, PP, don't build a straw man. now.

I haven't "insisted" they you do anything.

I've simply pointed out your astounding and notable lack of empathy for rape victims that permeates both your attitude throughout your thread and your interactions with me.

I also think that pointing that out DOES form part of a "sensible discussion".

Now, it's interesting that you feel that acknowledging the experience of a rape victim doesn't amount to adding to a discussion around rape. Don't you think? Why is that?

"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"

Oh, and PP, I'm sorry, but wrt the above statement.

There's a "constant narrative that all men are rapists" Really? Where? I have to say that this is something I have NEVER encountered. Where do you live/work/read the newspaper to experience this narrative?

Have you read this thread?!

I have read the thread and I haven't seen a single suggestion that all men are rapists. Let alone a constant narrative.

Have YOU read the thread?

Are you suitably mollified now, PP?

Bye for now, PP. I'm off out now with my lovely DH and his friend.

Gosh, I hope they don't rape me. Because, you know, all men do that.

Later.