Big Brother wants 7 years data if you are a rape victim

[OldQueen1969]

www.theguardian.com/society/2020/jun/17/police-in-england-and-wales-dropping-inquiries-when-victims-refuse-to-hand-in-phones

Thought this might be of interest.

[Bananabixfloof]

@Sugarhorse1

This is something I'm not comfortable with at all, for reasons others have covered. Victims shouldn't have to hand over their phone. But it's happened because of the Liam Allan case and others like it, where text messages that supported the defendants case weren't investigated and disclosed. The CPS generally won't run with cases where the victims phone hasn't been examined because quite frankly, the chances of a conviction are slim to nothing at that point. I don't like it, but that's how it is.

Well yes it is how it is and that now means fewer victims coming forward. I too would advise any woman to not bother reporting a rape. I couldn't tell a man the same because I dont know what outcomes they have.

And it's because of the way women are treated if they report. I couldn't in all conscience push a woman towards a court case, having their phone taken or even just the information on it. Because who knows what innocent search or comment on sm would trip them up in court.

I currently look a lot at rape stats and were I to be raped in the near future (the next 7 years anyway) those searches could well be held against me. Also the fact I didnt bother reporting previous rapes, also childhood abuse, and probably other stuff that I cant yet imagine would actually be a problem to say now but in future who really knows 🤷‍♀️

[Gronky]

It's wrong to push any responsibility for the rapist's future crimes onto his prior victim(s).

I am sincerely sorry if I gave the impression that I was in any way blaming victims for this. It's such an unthinkably grotesque attitude to me that I didn't even consider someone might genuinely think that way.

[BreakingTheChain]

Extremely saddened, not just because it means a potential criminal who might reoffend is still free to do so but because it indicates to me that there are women out there who don't believe the justice system works for them.

Almost 100% of rapists who are reported to police remain free to reoffend, though. That's the ugly and enraging truth. It's wrong to push any responsibility for the rapist's future crimes onto his prior victim(s).

FiLiA conducted a survey recently
filia.org.uk/resources/2020/5/27/womens-confidence-in-policing-a-filia-survey

I've just started reading Jessica Taylor's book Why Women are Blamed for Everything - Exploring Victim Blaming of Women Subjected to Violence and Trauma. Much relevance here.

[Gronky]

ShinyFootball thank you too for taking the time to respond. My understanding is that cases where the CPS has not provided exonerating evidence do not involve, as in your example, victims who have just met their alleged attacker and messages which are years older but, rather, current information from around the time of the incident. If you have an example case, I would really appreciate a citation to better understand the issue.

On the volume of data, I believe that an apparent difficulty in processing does not mean it shouldn't be collected as it seems that this would only similarly undermine the prosecution. Instead, I see it as an indication that more resources should be allocated.

In answer to your question on what I think should be done, I've already answered that but would be happy to clarify any points where I've been unclear.

I know you come on here to give balance, in your eyes.

Could I please ask on what axis you believe I am attempting to provide balance? I read a lot more threads than I post on because I broadly agree and often find useful and edifying information. In those threads, any question I might want to ask or any point I might want to make has usually been posed or made much more clearly and elegantly than I ever could so I try to avoid cluttering up the discussion.

[ShinyFootball]

Gronky thank you for engaging in discussion.

It's late so I'm just going to pick this bit up.

'Regarding 7 years. I agree that it's not necessary to examine the data in every case but I think its collection makes sense on the basis that there is a separation in the legal roles between police as investigators and the CPS as prosecutors'

The reason all this happened was that some cases collapsed as there was evidence that the police had from phones that was not handed to the prosecution. I have covered that this was no more prevalent in rape cases than other crimes, but the media chose not to mention that and focus on the rape cases that collapsed. And we covered earlier a case where the new 'evidence' seemed pretty unconvincing.

Anyway. If the police have 7 years data, they HAVE to go through it. What if there is a text, for arguments sake, 5 years ago saying 'I'm totally bonkers and I totally want to make up a rape and send an innocent man to prison'?

If they have the data they HAVE to go through it. All of it. Because if they don't, and if turns out later (more likely) that a woman said 5 years ago that she was putting on her fancy knickers for a big night out, and that is not read and shared, then the cases will just collapse again.

I know you come on here to give balance, in your eyes. At least I assume that's why you post on these threads.

So here's a question.
Given that sex offences against women and girls (and men and boys) are under reported, with people who report subjected to pretty severe treatment (phones taken, feeling that they are the ones under investigation), taking into account the mishandling of things like warboys, Reid, the systematic sexual exploitation of girls around the country, accounts from Women who have been through this that they would advise others not to do it....

What is the solution? I'm sure you agree that sex offences are serious. In the UK there is, in real life, little recourse. And it's worse than ever now. What can be done? Any ideas?

[Graciebobcat]

Loads of women are raped by people they know, or may have done a lot of flirting with by text with before they were raped. It doesn't establish whether consent was given. It doesn't matter how much flirting was done, you are always entitled to say no.

[squeekums]

Extremely saddened, not just because it means a potential criminal who might reoffend is still free to do so but because it indicates to me that there are women out there who don't believe the justice system works for them. I can only imagine how stressful and depressing that must be on a daily basis.

Why would we believe it would work for us, keep us safe, help us?
Victims are routinely dragged through the mud backwards and then shoved to the side.

This isnt just a UK thing either, Im in Aus, I knew at 12 to not bother reporting my rape to the cops.

[HeIenaDove]

This also means that if a woman whose phone has been taken off her is on Universal Credit she may not be able to sign into her account risking a sanction.

[Sugarhorse1]

This is something I'm not comfortable with at all, for reasons others have covered. Victims shouldn't have to hand over their phone. But it's happened because of the Liam Allan case and others like it, where text messages that supported the defendants case weren't investigated and disclosed. The CPS generally won't run with cases where the victims phone hasn't been examined because quite frankly, the chances of a conviction are slim to nothing at that point. I don't like it, but that's how it is.

[Gronky]

and tend to treat each discussion in isolation

Apologies, I meant to say, I tend to treat those involved in each discussion in isolation.

[Gronky]

I've been on here for years and not seen the feminist posters suggesting this. It's usually brought up randomly. Biases are probably at play.

I'm afraid I'm terrible with names, especially abstract ones and tend to treat each discussion in isolation so I couldn't tell you whether or not the proposer is a 'feminist' (I broadly assume most non-abusive posters are until proven otherwise). However, since you're not proposing it, I'm happy to drop the question since it seems pointless to debate something we both agree on.

Are you saying that the civil courts should be done away with?

No, they are definitely an important part of the legal system, I was identifying a flaw with their lower barrier for conviction.

Regarding 7 years. I agree that it's not necessary to examine the data in every case but I think its collection makes sense on the basis that there is a separation in the legal roles between police as investigators and the CPS as prosecutors. As I said, I don't think the current system is robust enough and propose instead a two stage system where collection is as broad as it is currently but access is restricted on the basis of justification. Regardless of where the information came from (phones or even word of mouth) I want to see judges clamp down on character assassination as a legal defence.

I agree that depriving a woman of her phone is unacceptable and either a replacement should be offered or the aforementioned systems which clone data in minutes be employed.

You would say that is my bias, I'm sure.

I would say that's your opinion (as my views on this subject are my opinion). I find bias to be an unpleasant, loaded word in this case because it suggests that a particular viewpoint wasn't arrived at fairly. Personally, I believe there is a benefit to this data collection but it should be refined to make victims more comfortable with providing this information (not just reassurances but genuine re-engineering of the manner in which it is used).

How do you feel when you see post after post on MN were women say if they were raped they would not report, and they will advise their daughters the same.

Extremely saddened, not just because it means a potential criminal who might reoffend is still free to do so but because it indicates to me that there are women out there who don't believe the justice system works for them. I can only imagine how stressful and depressing that must be on a daily basis.

[ShinyFootball]

Gronky another question.

How do you feel when you see post after post on MN were women say if they were raped they would not report, and they will advise their daughters the same.

Then when you read the threads with women talking about past sexual crimes against them, going back years. And the vast majority say they never reported it, even before the phones thing.

[ShinyFootball]

'On courts and the barrier for conviction, I realise it wasn't specifically mentioned in this thread. However, it is mentioned reasonably frequently when the low rate of conviction is brought up in this discussion'

I've been on here for years and not seen the feminist posters suggesting this. It's usually brought up randomly. Biases are probably at play. I genuinely have not seen this. It wouldn't work at all. The media already push the idea that women and girls lie all the time. Reduce the burden of proof for this one crime and it would be pretty much impossible to get a conviction.

' For civil courts, I'm less sure that their barrier for prosecution is broadly beneficial; I understand its necessity and that it is slightly more justifiable on the basis of the limited penalties which can be imposed but, equally, I feel it puts too much power in the hands of those who can afford large numbers of solicitors.'

I don't follow your point here. Are you saying that the civil courts should be done away with?

Re 7 years. I'm not convinced by your argument at all. 7 years is a really long time.
'if the accuser does fabricate an exonerating story which involves information from further afield..'
This doesn't really make sense. You meet a bloke in the pub 3 weeks ago. Date 2 he rapes you. Why are 7 years records required? Why counselling records, medical records (not related to the crime). School records??
From a practical perspective it's unworkable. There simply isn't the resource to go through 1000s of texts. Women are having their phones kept for years, for nothing.
And a final point. I just remembered the last bit of the ched Evans case. Remember he was originally charged based on his own statement about the night. The woman didn't report him. He was convicted. That was overturned a while later after they found an ex partner of hers to tell the court that she liked / said xyz when in bed with him. How is that relevant? If a woman has a certain type of sex/ preference with one man then that is proof she would do that with any and all men? Nope. This is the new 'knickers in the courtroom' to show the woman is up for it and therefore unrapeable. As happened in Ireland (or was it NI) not so long ago. The fact that the woman is judged on her morals or whatever, her past, rather than the case in hand is appalling.

'I believe it ultimately comes down to whether an individual believes the data is being collected for the benefits of the prosecution or the benefit of the defence.'

From the links to articles in the press, and reading the experiences of women on this thread and elsewhere, I'd say it's for the defence. And before that, the police and CPS seeing if she is a perfect enough victim to bother investigating/ taking it to court.
You would say that is my bias, I'm sure.

[DandyMandy]

If I was raped, there's no way I would report it. Women who do report it are so brave and I support them all the way because they're about to go through even more hell. It's scary to think that a large percentage of police officers are domestic abusers/rapists themselves and that absolutely is one of the reasons for the shitty conviction rate. Officers and the higher ups don't view rape as a big deal because chances are they've done it themselves.

You can guarantee that they will want the victims phone to see if she was into "rape fantasies"🤢 even though it's more likely that men into that type of thing are one step away from committing the crime.

Look at how the guy who raped all those men in Manchester was classed as "the worst serial rapist in British history" and how the government was going to look into GHB even though it has been used against women and girls for years, suddenly because men were raped it was a big deal? There's still a serial rapist on the loose in Bath I believe. The man who committed those atrocious crimes has never been caught but it's highly likely he was in the army.

[Gwynfluff]

Phones hold all sorts of info. It can prove (to some extent) you were where you said you were, for example.

Do you need to have the phone for that, let alone years? As the medical records case shows, they are looking for evidence that the women is not reliable or consented or ‘asked for or’. It would be relatively easy to set parameters about when a phone needed to be taken, for how long and what sort of data could be accessed.

[aliasundercover]

What are they actually looking for on the victims phone?

Phones hold all sorts of info. It can prove (to some extent) you were where you said you were, for example.

[Gronky]

Thank you for taking the time to reply, ShinyFootball, especially at such a late hour.

On courts and the barrier for conviction, I realise it wasn't specifically mentioned in this thread. However, it is mentioned reasonably frequently when the low rate of conviction is brought up in this discussion. For civil courts, I'm less sure that their barrier for prosecution is broadly beneficial; I understand its necessity and that it is slightly more justifiable on the basis of the limited penalties which can be imposed but, equally, I feel it puts too much power in the hands of those who can afford large numbers of solicitors.

Regarding 7 years for phones and medical evidence; the police are investigators, not prosecutors. In addition to the previously discussed metadata (I think that's the right term) for location, I understand that data which is not there is equally important (e.g. abuser claiming they had contact with the victim). This is why I'd advocate a broad initial data collection, followed by specific access requests which the victim can grant or deny. The key purpose here being to maintain data integrity since, if the accuser does fabricate an exonerating story which involves information from further afield, there is securely held evidence which can hopefully be used to disprove it. I think the alternative system to adversarial you're thinking of is inquisitorial; I believe what I describe incorporates elements of that.

I agree that alternate systems should be explored but, given that this would take a long time to change (if it could be changed at all), I think the parallel re-engineering of the current systems would also be beneficial. In an ideal world, I wouldn't want women's phones taken from them and their private data scrutinised either but, in the world we live in, I want every opportunity to collect information which might ensure a correct legal decision to be taken advantage of.

You originally asked
"I'd like to understand why the views are so polarised."

I believe it ultimately comes down to whether an individual believes the data is being collected for the benefits of the prosecution or the benefit of the defence.

[ShinyFootball]

Sorry gronky I didn't reply.

First thing is 'Women have historically suffered when the barrier for conviction is taken below 'innocent until proven guilty'. This has not been suggested on this thread that I can see.

That said, quite a few women who have had the strength and means to take rape cases to civil court after a not guilty verdict in a criminal court have won. The bar there is on the balance of the evidence, rather than beyond all reasonable doubt. Which is a lower bar.

On the phones.

I think it should be looked into why they are analysed more in rape cases than other crimes, when the collapsed cases that brought this about were across the range of crimes. Also, the media is an issue. The collapsed cases were across many crimes, why was rape focussed on in the reporting? The fact it was happening at the same level as other crimes was not mentioned or a footnote. Why? This skews public perception. Ditto that false accusations are reported very disproportionately to convictions. Why do they do this? It hardens attitudes towards rape victims as the public get a skewed picture.

The time. 7 years? Why? If it was a bloke you met in the pub 3 weeks ago, surely only communications after meeting him are relevant. 7 years is a really really really long time. What are they looking for?

Slight aside but medical records. Why? If not medical records related to the assault? The poster earlier said the fact the had depression was raised in court to cast doubt on her credibility.
Quick Google gives govt stats 'antidepressants 7.3 million people (17% of the adult population'. '
That is now, over last 7 years how many? And women are on them more than men.

It just feels hopelessly stacked against us.

A litany of terrible failures from warboys to Reid to the girls in Rotherham show that there is a real issue. Prosecutions are at an all time low. And yet, whether people like it or not, this is a common and terribly under reported crime. This is accepted by the police.

My take is
Funds are short
The general public/ society don't really care (they say they do but the reality is they don't, people say rape is a terrible crime but when actual cases come it's all, why did she go there, what was she wearing, well she kissed him etc etc)
If police took this seriously they wouldn't have time to do anything else (reason sex is a protected characteristic but strangely omitted from hate crime laws)

In short. And I know I've written an essay. Our system was set up by men for men to tackle the sort of crime that happens to men. It was mainly around property, or obvious punch in the face type violence. It is hopeless for the sort of crimes that are more common for women and children (and of course men are raped too).

Other countries have a system where it's more of a discussion (forget what it's called) rather than our adversarial system.

I would like to see an acknowledgement of the frequency of these crimes, that they are under reported, that the nature of them combined with social attitudes makes them very difficult to prosecute.

And a genuine look at what they can do.

And I do not want to see women's phones taken for years, 7 years data, their medical records, counseling records, school records, trawled through when she reports that a man she met 3 weeks ago raped her. What is the relevance?

[ShinyFootball]

This is a good article from June last year

www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/rape-victims-phones-medical-records-met-police-cps-a8949636.html%3famp

'Jane, now 32, said she was presented with consent forms enabling investigators to access records from her primary and secondary schools, universities, GP and therapists.'

When they had DNA evidence to show who it was.

[ShinyFootball]

We used to talk about how only 'perfect victims' stood a chance of getting to court/ a conviction etc.

This is perfect victim +++++

Because your phone holds so much info which we consider private.

So if they find anything, anything at all, that can be used against you, game over. Not interested. And in the meantime they keep your phone sometimes for years because the amount of data is so vast on each phone they don't have the resource to go through it (and suspect rape is not that high a priority). How many women have, in the last 7 years, not done anything at all on their phone that could be used to paint them in a bad light by the defence.

The medical records stuff is v worrying as well.

[ShinyFootball]

Bernadette -

'12:28vampirethriller

The police still have my phone. They took it 8 years ago.
Held against me in court:
I was on antidepressants
I had an abortion
I was a prostitute
I had photos of myself dressed up for a night out on my phone
I'm tall (so could have fought harder)'

So that's the sort of thing the info is used for

[slipperywhensparticus]

This is why I wouldn't bother reporting it's not worth it

[slipperywhensparticus]

Someone close to me was accused of sexual assault on a minor child twice in fact he still had access to his children throughout the investigation supervised by his mother who was in the house during one of the alleged assaults on his own stepchild social services crucified the mum even though she was in hospital at the time and didn't know a fucking thing the man was treated like a poor victim despite the fact that this made it his second arrest for the same offence of course because he wasn't convicted the first time no one thought to tell his wife about this she was fucking oblivious

[Gwynfluff]

What are they actually looking for on the victims phone? Proof (e.g. messages) where she has confirmed that she is lying?

Did she phone and tell people immediately. Did she have a prior relationship. Her past sexual history. Anything at all that implies she ‘Asked for it’, basically. No understanding of trauma responses or even right to redact consent at any pointb

[Gwynfluff]

Small number of women lie against how many men lying about whether they have raped? Basically you can rape now and get away with it. Virtually impossible to get to court or get a conviction. Keep talking about the tiny number of women who falsely accuse and In the meantime have a culture in which you and your female kids are not safe.