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
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
Well you've gone and blown that possibility now haven't ya
Both are shit scenarios. But at the moment too many women are having their lives destroyed because they don't get justice or a man who shoud have been locked up is free to rape again.
A system which doesn't convict the guilty is just as fundamentally flawed as one that convicts the innocent
ooops...
Indeed..but whats the point of changing it to something that we know is equally flawed?
Also id argue that a woman who gets raped will have her life destroyed whether or not the guy gets convicted...
Thats making the assumption that hes a serial rapist and in the vast majority of cases that isnt true..
The rapist who gets away with it MIGHT rape again - someones life is destroyed
The man who gets wrongly convicted WILL have his life destroyed.
Despite the fact that quite a few people accused are probably average people who aren't like that.
Yes, but its a lot easier to rebuild if there's some justice afterwards - and it also prevents other women having theeir lives destroyed.
But you seem to be missing the point. i'm not arguing for something which automatically locks up the guilty - i am arguing that the current system is so badly flawed its incapable of locking up the guilty and it needs to be reformed - not so that it locks someone up on just a woman's say so, but to ensure more guilty men don't get away with it. Any system where only 5% of rapes lead to a succesful prosecution is so totally on the side of the accussed as to not be blind justice at all.
Which is why I used quotations and mentioned other evidence.
Yes you are, the assumption being that she did not consent, therefore unless the man can prove otherwise then he is guilty of rape. That is asking to prove his innocence, something which goes against the supposed principle of our justice system.
I am not sure where tha came from because I don't think that I have ever given that impression. I might well ask you if you think that 95% are true?
Point is that we have a system which requires a "beyond reasonable doubt" verdict. We need to find a way to ensure that we are able to come to those verdicts without predjudicing the case against the defendant who is the person who is protected by the "justice" part of our penal system.
But not the cases involving many other public accusations?
Why is it one or the other with this issue? Why can you not see that we have a duty to protect the innocents in false claims too?
The easy response would be the kneejerk "hang'em high" approach, but that would mean that people like Craig Charles, Paul Weller, the Hamiltons and several footballers would now be behind bars. What I am suggesting is that it isn't always black and white.
What attitude has my post suggested?
Rapists get away with it because it's difficult to prove that rape happened, in a huge number of cases. I agree with you that some of the defences are complete shite and that the jury (which is the real problem here) should disregard the evidence about clothing, sexual history etc. You don't solve that by the presumption of guilt.
But all defendants have to prove their innocence, really. They have to rebut the prosecution case with their own evidence, but their evidence doesn't need to be as strong.
What I am saying is that her saying "I passed out, I don't remember anything" is not tantamount to her saying she said yes, and far too many times in court it is being taken to mean that.
If a jury decides that she didn't prove it beyond reasonable doubt then I accept that.
Too many times it is a case that because the woman says she can't remember saying no, because she had passed out, then a judge unilaterally decides that there is no case to answer. Incompetent prosecution lawyers just go along with it. That is what angers me.
The rate of false reporting of rape is about 4%, which is in line with other crimes.
It isn't black-and-white, but the simple fact of the matter is that if I raped your wife or your daughter I would get away with it. I agree with balddog in that it is better to have rapists get out of court free than it is to see innocent men go down, but increasing the conviction rate wouldn't see innocent men go down for something they didn't do.
The conviction rate is so low because the prosecution system we have is inept when it comes to these cases. Prosecutors never meet the victims- unlike defence lawyers who meet the defendants every week- and that shows when it comes to court. Defence lawyers know what to ask to get their man off, but the prosecutor doesn't have a clue. Other countries with specialist rape prosecutors have increased conviction rates dramatically, and it isn't because they are hanging the innocent.
I think, the adversarial system works quite nicely for all.
Whatever do you mean?
you could argue, as has been put before by many feminist thinkers, that all men are rapists. rapists make or tollerate their own laws to suit their ends. The objectification of women as a man's property could be seen up until 1991. Those studying law will tell you that up untl 1991 in the UK a man could rape his wife on the grounds that marriage was viewed as irrevocable consent; that a wife was her husband's property. See R v R 1991 (Marital Rape) on google.
The adversarial system is the system of justice we have in this country (ie not like other european countries). each party prepares his/her own case for the trial, there is a judge who hears evidence and decides on the legal issues.
In france and most of europe, the system of justice is known as an 'inquisitorial' system of justice where the police don't collect evidence for the prosecutors, the judge gathers evidence pretrial for both parties in a dossier.
The courtroom is basically confirmation of what is in that dossier - questions are asked but there's no hot contest where expensive lawyers can make parties look silly or bring their reputation into disrepute.
Like Kermit said, when you look at the practicalities of rape trials in england, there is theoretically a winner and a looser.
What's to be done. trial by ordeal? i believe that the victim need not even be present in court. the jury assumption can make no assumption on her looks, hair colour, manner of dress, her accent her mannerisms. Yet the defendant, 'well he didn't smile proper and didn't look like the jailer liked him', and ooh whatabout those dark bags under his eyes, perhaps he's had a few late nights alone.' ok i've trivialised the point. any thoughts
seriously
If so, that is crap...
I remember reading Kermit's reply back on page one, and also reading back to one of my old threads on a similar issue. I have little else to add, other that I'd be in favour of anonymity on both sides until any trial is finished. You've got to bear in mind that, once the media have the name of an alleged rapist, they will start tearing him to shreds. Remember when John Leslie was accused? His name was smeared and trashed. He was torn to pieces through an utterly disgusting smear campaign being orchestrated by The Sun and the Daily Mail. It was then found there was no evidence prove he'd done any of this, therefore was in the eyes of the law innocent. Have they since apologised for dragging his name through the gutter? Nope! I understand not every man who's accused of rape is famous, but this is merely one of the more famous examples of what can happen.
As for persons found guilty of rape, and persons who make false accusations of rape, (by that I mean the women who make a complaint, then confess they made it all up) I have no sympathy for them. The media can shred them to pieces for all I care.
Totally agreed
Can't the said papers be sued for something like this?
no leading him on would be deciding the i will course of action then changing her mind. no those circumstances are not any justification for rape. and no most men arn't rapists and will seethe and walk away tsk tsk!
The first question... all I can suggest is he asks explicitly for consent before they get up to anything. The second I find much harder to answer.
It's her word against his, so unless forensics prove it, then it's hard to prove that the man thinks the woman consented.
so then the burden of proof isn't satisfied and the man walks free. so men make laws that suit men.
Care to explain exactly how you reached that conclusion?