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.

'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.

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.

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.

and tend to treat each discussion in isolation

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

@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 🤷‍♀️