If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
how to deal with rape cases
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
start off with a mini intro
basically very few reported rape cases land up in a successful prosecution - but what can be done to ensure better, less traumatic and overall fairer trials can take place
what would you do if you could?
i'd make the accused and the apparant victim anonymous until the end of the trial, it's fairer on both involved parties. there should also be better preparation for the victim when it comes to the cross-examination, and as they would recieve trial preparation i'd say you should be able to ask them about their past sexual relationships as it can show if they are just a victim of poor decision making
generally imo, the problem with rape trials is that is normally one persons word against another, which means its almost impossible to prove beyond reasonable doubt that consent wasn't given
been having a think about this, lowering the burden of proof would work, but how the hell would someone be able to defend themselves after consensual sex if the victim later decides they didnt consent and lies? its really hard trying to balance the situation - is a trial even the best way of doing things or is there any other ways of dealing with it so real rape victims can see justice, and falsely accused people can defend themselves, and the odd situations in between?
just a thread for really discussing what can be done? im thinking providing more counselling for victims would be very helpful
basically very few reported rape cases land up in a successful prosecution - but what can be done to ensure better, less traumatic and overall fairer trials can take place
what would you do if you could?
i'd make the accused and the apparant victim anonymous until the end of the trial, it's fairer on both involved parties. there should also be better preparation for the victim when it comes to the cross-examination, and as they would recieve trial preparation i'd say you should be able to ask them about their past sexual relationships as it can show if they are just a victim of poor decision making
generally imo, the problem with rape trials is that is normally one persons word against another, which means its almost impossible to prove beyond reasonable doubt that consent wasn't given
been having a think about this, lowering the burden of proof would work, but how the hell would someone be able to defend themselves after consensual sex if the victim later decides they didnt consent and lies? its really hard trying to balance the situation - is a trial even the best way of doing things or is there any other ways of dealing with it so real rape victims can see justice, and falsely accused people can defend themselves, and the odd situations in between?
just a thread for really discussing what can be done? im thinking providing more counselling for victims would be very helpful
0
Comments
2. I would have specialist rape prosecutors, who know exactly what they are doing and know exactly how to get the best testimony from a rape victim in the witness box. They would know how to prepare the case to rebut common defence attacks, and they would know how to attack the defendant to show he is a rapist. In New York convictions shot up by about 50% after specialist prosecutors were introduced.
It would certainly prevent situations like that where the rape victim had to hold her underwear up in court as part of the trial- the woman later committed suicide because of the humiliation.
3. I would make it quite clear that if a person is drunk they cannot give informed consent. The law already states this, but if the law needs to be bolstered, then so be it. If the woman's testimony is that she passed out, then it should be up to the defendant to show that he reasonably believed she consented.
4. Education of society is important. It is still assumed all too often that if the woman was drunk or dressed in sexy clothing then she must be a slut who would want sex with anyone- this is very often very wrong. Without changing that attitude juries simply will not convict- it is too easy for defence barristers who know what they are doing to fling mud at the victim without giving her any chance to defend her name.
I don't think the burden of proof should be lowered or changed, but at the moment it seems that if you can't remember what happened, or you didn't scream enough, then incompetent judges and barristers assume that the burden of proof has not been met. This is quite clearly wrong.
Yes, there is always an element of it being one person's word against another, but the fact is that rape copnvictions have dropped dramatically in the last ten years, and it isn't that rape is harder to prove now.
There needs to be an understanding that there is no case where rape is excusable. rape is rape
I don't think so. Not really.
That defence has always been used, but it seems that now if the woman says she was drunk that is enough to prevent a prosecution proving guilt beyond all reasonable doubt.
Recent cases have included women stating in testimony that they have passed out, but because they couldn't remember saying no it is assumed that they probably had sex with such disparate people as a taxi driver, an on-duty policeman, and the security guard supposedly taking them safely home.
That is what is wrong. It is partly societal attitudes, and partly an incompetent judiciary and prosecution counsel.
It doesn't even get that far.
If the woman can't remember saying no to the security guard supposedly looking after her, then that obviously means she consented, and the case was thrown out accordingly. At no stage was the defendant put to proof, and at no stage was a jury asked to decide on the evidence. A moronic bvarrister and a misogynistic judge decided that the testimony she had passed out wasn't enough, she should have remembered screaming no otherwise, well, she deserved it, the slag.
I think this would be a good idea.
Another good idea.
Are you basically saying what was said earlier this year/end of last year, where if a woman is drunk and gets raped, it's her own fault? (I think that was what a judge said anyway)
...but it's those last two words which are important.
If the "victim" cannot testify that she said "no" then reasonable doubt can apply. Natch other evidence permitting.
What you are asking for is the presumption of guilt and that is simply not acceptable.
And the reason that this gives "reasonable doubt" is because it can be argued that, much like those claims which are clearly false, this is an easy way out for those dumb bitches who think that this is a better option than admitting infidelity.
If you want to reduce the number of false claims, then one step would be to convict those who have comitted perjury in these cases. Rape is a heinous crime, to be falsely accused equally so.
What do you think should happen to the people who falsely claim that they've been raped?
What counts as a false accusation of rape? Is it where somebody accuses somebody of rape but the defendant is found not guilty in court? There are cases where rape cannot be proven beyond all reasonable doubt in court - that doesn't automatically mean the accuser was lying. Hence prosecuting people for 'false' rape accusations can get very complex. Anyway it already happens in clear-cut cases, the woman who falsely accused the Hamiltons of rape was jailed for three years.
Going back to how rape cases are dealt with Judge Mr Justice Roderick Evans says "drunken consent is still consent" - I don't think I'd agree but what happens where the accuser and the accused were both very drunk?
I agree with Kermit on 2, I think that's a feasible initiative that could definitely improve things but things get harder with 3 and 4, especially on how to go about changing attitudes. And on 1, I'm very sympathetic to the idea of anonymity for defendants until conviction - but as has been said before when someone is accused of rape it's not uncommon for other victims to come forward. (The same is true in some paedophile cases).
technically it'd be by showing the apparant victim lied about the circumstances
But the fact is, naming them and keeping the justice system open can bring other victims forward.
Also, if people accused of rape get anonymity, would that include peodophiles? And why not accused murderers, thieves, vandals?
I think it must be confusing for elderly judges to comprehend society now, the way people go out and get paralyetic, girls and boys sleep in beds together without anything happening, all sorts of confusing things go on and they have to apply a strict ancient law.
The problem with this attitude, of course, is that you do not have to say no to not consent to sexual intercourse.
The fact that her testimony was that she was passed out and did not know what was going on- in one case, the girl only realised she'd had sex when the man was arrested- should count just as much as her not screaming no.
The fact that you even imply that if a woman doesn't say no she wasn't raped says a lot about society's attitudes to rape victims IMHO.
No, I'm not.
I am asking for the women to be given a fair crack of the whip, for the women to be listened to and heard, not just ignored because they dared to wear a nice dress and get drunk.
Unless, of course, you believe that 95% of rape claims are false?
Those who have committed perjury are prosecuted for it, as witnessed by the woman who falsely alleged rape against the Hamiltons.
Do you believe that 95% of women who claim rape are liars who cheated because they were "dumb bitches" who can't keep their legs shut?
Of all the people I know who have been raped- and the number is higher than it should be- none of them have reported it to the police because they face these attitudes. If they were wearing a nice skirt and were a bit drunk- like they were- they know everyone will just assume that they were a silly drunk tart, even if their entire history shows otherwise.
And people wonder why nearly all rapists get away with it.
Oh, and PussyKaty, the law governing rape was updated in 2003. It's hardly ancient. What the problem is that you have moronic judges and incompetent barristers regulating the law, so rapists walk free from court every day of the week.
You seem to be seeing this in a very black and white way mate....
Our justice system doesnt work that way...If a case is thrown out, it doest automatically mean the girl was a dumb bitch who was asking for it....it means that it wasnt completely proven that the rape took place...
I guess it depends what you prefer..
Rapists getting away with it or completely innocent men having their lives destroyed as a result of fake or not 100% proven cases...Both are terrible scenarios...
Personally Ill take the second option...because the rape has already happened and theres no guarantee that it will happen again...but a rape sentence will destroy an innocent mans life, thats an absolute...
Now I don't think option (a) is likely. I have some sympathy for option (b), but it fails to tell the whole story, so I think a bit of option (c) comes in. A 1 in 20 conviction rate is pretty terrible and given that few men commit rape once and never again suggests that a lot of predators are going back onto the street to commit more rapes.
I don't think anyone is suggesting that men accused of rape have to proove their innocence, but a fair trial means a fair trial for the victim as well as the defendant and the low numbers of convictions suggest something is wrong.
There is a 4th, and in my opinion, correct option...
That our justice system requires proof beyond all reasonable doubt before convicting someone...
Rape is a horribly difficult crime to prove or disprove unless it is incredibly clear cut..Its also a horribly damaging crime to both involved...the rape victim and the falsely accused rapist...So people have to be sure...
so whats the answer?
Is punishing the rapists worth convicting innocents?
One thing which need addressing is the education of men. I remember reading a report into a study of college students in America. A sizable portion of men described having sex in circumstances which would constitute rape, without being aware that their actions were technically illegal.
Reasonable doubt isn't being sure - they're different things. if you wanted people to be sure you'd have empty jails within a week.
And I'm not saying that we get rid of reasonable doubt - I'm saying at the moment the system is only convicting people when it is 'beyond all doubt' and I think that's a problem.
Beyond reasonable doubt is what the courts require....not beyond all doubt.
Is it a problem? I wonder if youd feel that way if you were falsely accused of rape...
Something does need to be done, but I dont know what can be done. Maybe when we get mind reading technology.
Yes, but at the moment the court system isn't working and juries (and the prosecutors) seem to be treating rape as beyond all doubt - perhaps because as you say its a horrendous thing to be accused off.
The 'how would you feel argument' doesn't work really, because whilst I'd be pissed off about me falsely accused of rape I'd also be pissed off if I was a woman who was raped and the person who did it walked away.
Given that we haven't got mind reading techology I think Kermits earlier suggestions seem sensible.
Indeed....but which is the better scenario? a rapist not being punished after the crime has been committed or an innocent man having his life destroyed?
They should recieve the same sentence as the guy would have been given had he been convicted of rape.
And naming them can bring a lifetime of suspicion as well as a bad reputation which can destroy families.
Nobody with an ounce of common sense will try to take way how damaging rape can be to a woman but we also have to look after the men here. Annonymity for the accused is absolutely vital - and at the same time there should be more help and support offered to victims of rape who have yet to come forward.
Yes but thats an assumption we make...He might never commit another rape.....but the innocent man will certainly have his life ruined..
Plus there is the good old lie detector trick, which is not 100% accurate, but will scare most people who know for a fact their claim is fake...
If THAT really was possible then there'd be no need for juries
But that's inadmissable in court.
Ye indeed, unfortunatly it isn't like that...
Yep I know that as well, but it can still scare a few and make them remove their fake claim...