Say sorry - don't get charged for rape.....

[Greydog]

I've just come across this - I've not seen it mentioned before, and if it has been I apologise...........but I'm just stunned - www.itv.com/news/calendar/2022-06-08/police-force-defends-use-of-apologies-to-deal-with-sex-offenders

I felt the need to highlight it to explain why it is happening. The first few posters were outraged and I was trying to explain that in many of these cases it might not be what they were imagining.

I think some posters might not have intitally understood the full scope of what was being talked about.

I certainly didn't mean to minimise sexual assault, I still can't exactly see where I did.

I don't think two same aged kids should be criminalised for having sex. Do you?

While not wanting to appear like I’m making light of the ordeal of rape victims (quite the contrary), I’m afraid this Father Jack apology was what was immediately brought to mind…

@DontBuyANewMumCashmere is your position that the age of consent doesn’t count is everyone’s a minor? I wonder why the law doesn’t say that?

No, I don't think it'd be right between say a 15yo boy and an 11yo girl/boy, for example.

But if two 14yos had sex and one set of parents complained, should the other party be criminalised for rape?

Rather depends on the situation but that’s why we have courts rather than the police inventing a “say sorry and we can just forget it ever happened”.

Now you are also being facetious - you must know the incident will remain on both young people's records. Should the 'offender' go on to commit any offences this one will be seen and taken into consideration.

Sadly the justice system haven't got space, time, or money to see every arrest be sent to court.
Not all thefts end up in court. Not all assaults.

I fully accept it is a difficult line but I hope you can also accept with common sense and co-operation between victim, suspect, and police, sometimes CR can be a useful disposal especially in less serious cases (which is what I've been talking about).

1. the victims do not have final say if such soft restitution is deployed

"Victims are asked for their opinion but official guidance says their view is “not definitive”. "

2. this has been used for rape on numerous occasions, some on ridiculously young ages

"Officers in Durham, Cheshire and Nottinghamshire all used it for the rape of girls under 13.

Merseyside cops dealt with the rape of a girl under 16 this way.

Police in Norfolk did likewise over the rape of a young boy, and Derbyshire and Devon & Cornwall also used community resolutions in rape offences."

3. this was used in at least 2 adult rape cases. And even in 23 cases of grooming for Christ's sake. If you don't think adult rape or grooming should be dealt with by the court rather than PC Plonkers best judgement, you need to take a look in the mirror.

"Since 2020, seven rape cases, five involving children, were dealt with by community ­resolution, Home Office figures show. There were 414 sexual assaults – 349 on girls and women. And 23 cases of grooming and 166 of exposure or voyeurism were resolved the same way."

I don't think I've seen stronger evidence of institutional misogyny in the police force in my entire life.

Sadly the justice system haven't got space, time, or money to see every arrest be sent to court. well if EVERY rape isn’t prosecuted, what % of rape victims deserve their attackers to go to trial? I mean seriously HOW can you be defending this?

I hope you can also accept with common sense and co-operation between victim, suspect, and police, sometimes CR can be a useful disposal especially in less serious cases (which is what I've been talking about). I’m not sure what a “less serious” case of sexual assault is to be honest. MY common sense says that ANY victim of sexual assault should be confident that the person who assaulted them will be charged and taken to court. I’m not interested in hearing you don’t have the resources to do your job so have decided you will tell victims that what happened to them is not serious and so “sorry” should be enough if they “use their common sense”. Shame on you.

I cannot see why underage sex would be 'crimed as rape'.

Rape is a specific legal offence, definition of which being that the victim has been subjected to sexual penetration without her or his consent and the perpetrator does not have a reasonable belief that the victim was consenting.

We have two totally different offences called sexual activity with a child and sexual activity with a child under 13 under the Sexual Offences Act 2003.

Why would any police force record sexual crimes incorrectly, in a way that was totally counterproductive?

@5zeds Another poster on this thread has described how her child was in a similar position and this disposal was appropriate for them - would you say Shame on you to her, too?

I can see this is unpopular.
I've explained situations where I believe it is appropriate. I think the majority of child sex offences with adult offenders would end up at court. I can still see how this can be useful.

We have been discussing this at work - we have to get enhanced DBS checks. How will this effect these?

@DontBuyANewMumCashmere well I’d say the families were victims of a police force not enforcing the law appropriately, so I’m not sure why they would feel ashamed for being treated so appallingly?

It’s rarely popular to not enforce laws that protect women and children from sexual assault. Why would it be?

All cases will need to go through CPS first to 'test' the evidence to determine any realistic prospect of a prosecution. There also has to be an element of things being proportional and in the public's best interest.

For example - two children under the age of consent, engage in sexual activity, both confirm what had happened and that they both agreed to do it. However, they can't consent due to their age - Is this in the public interest to prosecute through the court system when you have a more appropriate out-of-court disposal you can use?

Another example - male patient in a mental health hospital, has full capacity for his decision making, puts his arm around the waist of a staff member. Staff member feels as though he has done this for sexual gain. Is it in the public interest to prosecute the patient?

School pupil gets sent an explicit picture. She then send this on to a friend with a text of "I CAN'T BELIEVE WHAT I HAVE JUST BEEN SENT!". Do we prosecute her for distributing explicit images, malicious communications. Do we prosecute her friend for possession of explicit material. If you want the police to do their job properly, both girls will have to be arrested and their phones downloaded. Is this proportionate, or is there a better way to deal with this without the need to go through the courts?

Another point - If the police put a case together which is then rejected by CPS. So the police believe there is enough evidence to prosecute, but CPS don't despite various challenges made to them.

Do the police just write the crime off - or should they look at pursuing other means of a disposal. Might not be the prosecution that the victim wants - but we are not going to get this if CPS have refused it.

I trust a judge over the police to decide what the appropriate punishment is. If the courts decide the matter doesn't warrant recording, then so be it.

(the same police force culture that lead to a belief that Wayne Couzen's flashing didn't warrant follow ups. Yeah - I wonder why I don't trust their discretion on sexual cases)

OK then - so when CPS decide there is insufficient evidence to proceed or its not in the public interest - it just gets written off?

No further police involvement?

No consideration for any out of court disposals?

You're using a tiny tiny percentage of police to be reflective of the entire police force - I can't see how that is proportionate.

Getting some men to realise that their behaviour is rape and assault, not banter and persuasion/charisma, would be a great start.

Ad hoc work around a because the cps won’t prosecute are not the solution. If anything they send a message that there’s a kind of sexual assault that’s not really breaking the law and more of a breach of etiquette where perpetrators must be taught to apologise and victims taught to forgive so everyone can carry on with as little fuss as possible. Revolting.

I wonder what the uk would be like if 99% of sexual assaults were found guilty rather than innocent. What’s the negative? Are we really so pacif that we will raise generation after generation of sex predators and fodder? Change is possible but it does mean accepting that “sorry” doesn’t make everything go away for everyone.

Thats not a tiny part of the Police force who is misogynistic. There are many studies to show how sexism is deeply entrenched and is affecting women in the police force, partner of men in the police force as well as the victims. And it’s not just the Met Police either….

I agree @5zeds . What we are saying is that men who have recomgnaied they are guilty of breaking the law can get away with it because someone ( but NOT a judge!) has decided that the offense isn’t serious enough. On what ground do they take those decisions?!? I mean that’s not what the law says so are we saying that the law is wrong or that the Police can actually change the law when it sees fit?