80 new rape courts

[CassieMaddox]

Labour pledging this as part of their manifesto commitment to reduce VAWG.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/jun/08/labour-pledges-80-new-courts-in-bid-to-tackle-backlog-crisis

So pleased to see an actual tangible action targeted at something that will help women. I'm looking forward to seeing what else is in their manifesto now.

I am asking you direct questions and I hope for answers to them.

But if you would rather pretend they were rhetorical because you don't have any good answers, that's up to you.

On R4 around 7pm, they had a clip of self-ID fanatic Dodds. It was about nurseries. Asked how they'd pay for their expansion plan, she said Labour would need to get to that once in, and see what the civil servants have to say.

So the plan seems to be: make a lot of promises, don't cost them, blame the civil service when we can't deliver them.

Awesome.

So on this thread, no one has said this?

As i said absurd.

Well known technique used by many posters, is to make stuff up.

I’m pleased to see their policy on increasing rape prosecutions is making it into Labour’s manifesto too (not liking the name “rape court” though, hope that’s just the Guardian’s usual thoughtless “male gaze”). I think there are still issues with it. The lack of specialist judges and barristers being a key one. But it’s one part of the puzzle and with the operation Soteria roll out gives some reason for optimism that we will start to see a rise in rape convictions and an increase in justice for women who have been raped. I don’t think the definition of “woman” makes a difference to whether or not improving rape prosecution will help biological women. This is a crime that’s targeted at biological women regardless of anyone’s appropriation of our label.

I think it’s less clear that a more general target of reducing VAWG can be successful for biological women without clearly defining us. It’s much easier for competing targets regarding trans people‘s priorities to override effective policies for biological women if biology is not acknowledged as the overriding factor in VAWG.

They can tell us the cost and where they expect money to come from.

They already told us how they will use an estimated one off tax on the energy companies. They've told us at least 4 items it will be spent on.

It's not all and only about courts and staffing, its police to catch them, prisons to keep them in. Its about how long it takes to become a solicitor or barrister or judge. So now its down to university's having the space and courses. Schools pushing kids to become legal people.
I doubt it could be done in 8 years frankly.

And that's the more obvious people you'll need, theres many more in the background that will also be needed.
So it needs costing properly. Not just ooh 150 judges and we're done.

But I want to stress my last post which is even with all the ‘kit’ rape is very very hard to prove.

Rape is the epitome of a sex based crime. It can only be committed by someone with a penis.

The effective decriminalisation of rape, with the result the majority of rapists are walking free, is surely the biggest safeguarding issue out there.

It's a bit ridiculous to claim this is the wrong board for it. Unless all the talk about women's sex based rights and safeguarding is just hot air.

They also said they want the NHS to be doing more routine work at weekends. By whom and using what facilities/beds/equipment/lab services they haven't explained.
Hospitals that can manage it are already doing what they can at weekends and have been for years. Scans and Xrays for example can be done at weekends with skeleton staff.
Outpatient clinics and surgical procedures cannot.
It is easy to make announcements about something that sounds like a good idea. Until a bit of logical thought and risk assessment is applied.

So we do nothing? nothing on the NHS, nothing on Dentistry and nothing on Rape because its all "too difficult"

Meanwhile, the Tories are giving us another 2p of NI, so over 50 billion of tax cuts to workers and business.

Is that going to help improve public services for women and children?

I'm pretty sure that they made a very big deal last election of their manifesto being fully-costed. So it clearly can be done if they want to.

For judges you'll need to persuade those of us who are qualified to apply to do so, if you want them quickly. Same with getting experienced barristers to want to do the work. You're not going to send a brand new barrister into specialist work straight away.

To recruit more in the future, it's going to be a rather long term plan (8 years bare minimum, really).

Being realistic about logistics isn't being negative; it's pointing out that as noble a plan as this is, it's simply not workable in current conditions.

As for the PP bleating on about ratios of posting across the feminism boards, I find threads to read via Active Threads. It's rare to have a thread on the feminism chat board in Active (when I'm doom scrolling!).

Ooh. More misrepresentation (ironic given your post yesterday!).

Nobody is saying 'do nothing', we're saying plans need to be realistic and workable, as well as costed. To extrapolate this into saying nothing should be done is twisting it wildly.

Rape has not been decriminalised

If they ‘walk free’ they are not convicted and therefore not a proven rapist

Unless you want a Kangaroo court where a simple accusation means being locked away in prison for years I suggest you stop with this narrative

I’m happy to chat with you about it but this hyperbole has to stop as it’s untruthful (I say this as a woman who considers herself a feminist but works in this area and is very frustrated with the misrepresentations here)

This is the problem with the tories, is that they have no aspiration, its all tax cuts and market forces... any other plan is "unworkable, impossible, too long term"

So as i said early, for the tories, its all too difficult, so their plan is to do nothing at all.

This is the big difference between the 2 parties, Labour want to improve public services, Tories want to continue destroying our public services.

That £50billion in NI cuts would go an awful long way to addressing any concerns you might have.

Plus it should be remembered that these NI cuts will be funded by even more cuts in funding to Police, local Government, justice, education and even health.

Just whats needed!!! not.

I reacted to this in the same way that I reacted to a Tory announcement that if elected they would hire more police: what about the rest of the criminal justice system? The capacity issues run through it all - you can't have a court without the skilled people who work in it - judges, barristers, solicitors, clerks, security. And if they are found guilty, the prisons are full. Kier 100% knows this as a lawyer. I would love to hear a comprehensive answer on these problems from a politician, from any party really.

I agree with @NoWordForFluffy and concur with her completely (also work in this area!)

There Is. No. Quick. Fix. and even if there was, rape and sexual offences in their nature are extremely hard to prove and naturally have a low conviction rate. The case can only be as good as the evidence that is there.

Running complaints on little evidence result in huge amounts of taxpayer’s money being wasted and a ‘not guilty’ verdict, causing disappointment and distress to the complainant. It isn’t in the interests of anyone to simply take every complaint to trial.

No where has Labour said there is a quick fix, 14 years of Austerity cannot be undone overnight but a start has to be made.

Nor have they said "every complaint should go to trial" but just 2% ????

Or we adopt the Tory plan and do nothing?

It can only be committed by someone with a penis.

AKA a man.

The effective decriminalisation of rape

I see this said a lot but am never sure what it means. Was there some glorious time under Labour when 80% of rapists were convicted? What was the conviction rate before the Tories “effectively decriminalised” it?

There’s nothing you can do bar increasing the budget for extra criminal justice and legal staff.

A massive part of the problem is the advent of movements such as ‘Me too’ and a new hyper awareness of what constitutes a sexual crime, means where previously only the most clear cut and strong cases would make it to court (usually stranger rapes concerning a degree of violence etc), we now have a bit of an avalanche of complaints made where the circumstances are more blurred. So within toxic relationships where both parties have been unpleasant to the other, people living chaotic lives where the facts are very hard to ascertain due to drink/drugs and so on.

Now of course anybody with a complaint of rape should make that complaint but it isn’t hard to see how cases with little to no hard evidence, no witnesses, and a long history of a complicated relationship are very difficult to prove. Even the best lawyer is only as good as the evidence they have, and advocating for cases with little evidence to be put to trial is a very dangerous idea.

The fact is it’s an unsolvable problem in many ways.

It’s hyperbole to suggest that the only way to improve justice for victims of rape is to have kangaroo courts.

Operation Soteria has shown that it is possible to improve investigations and conviction rates - quite dramatically in some areas and within just a year or two. This doom and gloom idea that the situation we are in now is inevitable and all plans to change it are doomed to failure is not a reasonable stance.

The proposal for 80 courts focused on trying rapists isn’t a quick fix for all the problems with prosecuting rape, and there are definitely challenges that the guardian article doesn’t even touch on. But getting rape prosecutions to court quicker than they are currently brought would be a massive boon for victims and far from meaning kangaroo courts would, if anything, improve the quality of evidence (as time generally has a negative impact on the quality and availability of evidence) and the administration of justice in these trials.

The wait between the rape and trial puts a huge cost on victims. It makes it hard for them to move on and put the experience behind them, tearing more years from their lives. It delays access to treatment. It re-traumatizes them and it leaves rapists on the street for longer.

The court backlog is a scandal. An efficient and timely court service is essential infrastructure. When it breaks down the way ours has it is detrimental to civil society and the rule of law. That’s true for all crimes, but it’s especially true for crimes that leave a heavy traumatic mark on victims.

But how does an efficient court service improve the quality of evidence? It can see it making a small difference in that a timely trial means less complainants dropping out, and the events being fresher in their memories, but it won’t be a magic bullet and the conviction rate will likely always be relatively low.

It’s hyperbole to suggest that the only way to improve justice for victims of rape is to have kangaroo courts.

I didn’t say this.

The reason I am sceptical of Labours headline grabbing commitments (this morning it’s 100k extra dental appointments for kids) is that this is the tactic the Tories have used for years and we can see straight through it now. I don’t want dumbed down sound bites, I want to see a realistic, achievable plan with long term thinking. If any particular political party wants to tackle child poverty/VAWG/reduce NHS waiting times that’s great but I want to see them acknowledge the complexity of the issue(s), list what they see as the key contributory factors and say how they’ll address each one. Headlines have as much meaning as the brexit bus nhs pledge.

I’d have a lot more respect for Labour if they could just be upfront and say - Look, we’ve had 14 years of austerity and it’s going to take more than one parliamentary term to reverse the damage. The first five years won’t look very different to how things are now because there’s no money, so we’ll have to try to keep things going as they are until we can sort out the nations finances. For example, we’ll be working to undo all the corruption and jobs for pals and cronyism, which will then let us redirect your tax money currently going to them and use it for the benefit of us all, not the few. That will take a few years. In the meantime here’s how we’ll re-prioritise the spending of the income we do have.

considering due to lack of police, most don't even get investigated, So it's hardly that we want 'accusations' to mean conviction, we want these crimes to be properly investigated with the care and compassion that is needed.

Fake rape claims is such a weird argument, not one i've heard from a woman before. It's such a tiny number, maybe lets focus on the fact that MEN can rape us and face no repercussions? Do i want women who have been raped to be interrogated like THEY have committed a crime merely by reporting what has happened to them? That isn't going to help our society to effectively get rapists off our streets and out of our homes, all it does is ensure more women stay SILENT out of fear.
Don't know about you, but as a feminist i care pretty strongly about Women.

Anyone who thinks its a GOTCHA moment to make out so many accusations are lies doesn't live in reality.

What are you talking about? I’ve never said complaints are false just that they’re hard to prove. If you don’t understand the difference then you’re not up to this debate, frankly.

https://rapecrisis.org.uk/get-informed/the-decriminalisation-of-rape/#:~:text=Rape%20and%20sexual%20abuse%20have,rape%20prosecutions%20and%20702%20convictions.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/society/2020/jul/14/we-are-facing-the-decriminalisation-of-warns-victims-commissioner

It is not "hyperbole coming from me". It was said by the Victims Commissioner and various charities.

A crime where less than 2% of reports end in conviction is effectively decriminalised.

And I'd say sweeping it under the carpet and allowing the status quo to continue as its "too hard" to deal with has to stop.