Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Turned Out Nice Again

Rape victims to get pre-trial recorded interview option

Recommended Posts

'Alleged rape victims in England and Wales may not have to be cross-examined in front of the accused, under plans by the justice secretary.
Liz Truss is to set out reforms which would allow sex abuse victims to pre-record their testimony before a trial.
Speaking to the Sunday Times, she said schemes in three cities showed pre-recorded interviews led to a higher level of "early guilty pleas".
Ms Truss said the plans will come into force in September. 
[...]
In her Sunday Times interview, she said: "It reduces the level of trauma for the victim *.
"I want to see that being the standard offer in those cases and that will give more victims confidence to come forward."

The scheme was piloted for child victims of sexual offences in Liverpool, Leeds and Kingston-upon-Thames. ' **

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39319495

More repressive legislation further increasing the risk to men of false prosecutions. What next? Scrap trials altogether?

The Ched Evans appeal proved that the alleged victim's sexual history can be central to establishing the facts in a he said/she said prosecution.

* Where did the word "alleged" go in Ms Truss's reference to victims in her Sunday Times interview quoted above?
** Women are now regarded as children in the Judicial process? Jesus wept!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For children - fine. For grown women ? Disgraceful.

I'm sure it's pretty traumatic for a bloke to stand in court and be asked questions about the bloke sitting 10ft away who stabbed him 16 times. But he has to just get on with it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what I think of this.:mellow:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Verg dangerous step given our entire legal system is based on the idea of cross examination before a jury in court.

And full cross examination must still be allowed - so the defendant's lawyer will still ask some very, very unpleasant questions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Bossybabe said:

Shall I tell you? ?

I've never been raped. Women sometimes try very hard, but I always resist. I can't imagine what it would be like in court with the "accused".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be better if the law changed to allow / make it easier to have pre-recorded and video-link evidence presented by the victim wherever there was a need given the psychological trauma in the individual, regardless of gender.  This could be backed up with a list (but not exhaustive) of likely use cases, including rape.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, dgul said:

It would be better if the law changed to allow / make it easier to have pre-recorded and video-link evidence presented by the victim wherever there was a need given the psychological trauma in the individual, regardless of gender.  This could be backed up with a list (but not exhaustive) of likely use cases, including rape.

Yes, much better solution  dgul.

It's gone from one extreme (rapists being allowed to cross-examine the women they may have raped, which is horrendous IMHO) to the other. Where is the sensible middle ground?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can see both sides of this argument.  One plus is that it nails on the record hard lies made in false rape cases, and should enable harsher sentences as the judge and court will see the manipulative activities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, wherebee said:

I can see both sides of this argument.  One plus is that it nails on the record hard lies made in false rape cases, and should enable harsher sentences as the judge and court will see the manipulative activities.

They do already video your statement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dgul said:

It would be better if the law changed to allow / make it easier to have pre-recorded and video-link evidence presented by the victim wherever there was a need given the psychological trauma in the individual, regardless of gender.  This could be backed up with a list (but not exhaustive) of likely use cases, including rape.

Male rape is a crime that doesn't often hit the headlines. I extrapolate from that that male victims don't often report rape (as female victims didn't in decades past) and they'd be just as well protected in court under this rule as female victims. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Turned Out Nice Again said:

'Alleged rape victims in England and Wales may not have to be cross-examined in front of the accused, under plans by the justice secretary.
Liz Truss is to set out reforms which would allow sex abuse victims to pre-record their testimony before a trial.
Speaking to the Sunday Times, she said schemes in three cities showed pre-recorded interviews led to a higher level of "early guilty pleas".
Ms Truss said the plans will come into force in September. 
[...]
In her Sunday Times interview, she said: "It reduces the level of trauma for the victim *.
"I want to see that being the standard offer in those cases and that will give more victims confidence to come forward."

The scheme was piloted for child victims of sexual offences in Liverpool, Leeds and Kingston-upon-Thames. ' **

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39319495

More repressive legislation further increasing the risk to men of false prosecutions. What next? Scrap trials altogether?

The Ched Evans appeal proved that the alleged victim's sexual history can be central to establishing the facts in a he said/she said prosecution.

* Where did the word "alleged" go in Ms Truss's reference to victims in her Sunday Times interview quoted above?
** Women are now regarded as children in the Judicial process? Jesus wept!

 

 

Two things to say about this.

 

1. This has all the potential to go very veyr wrong. I bet it's the feminists pushing this shit through. Never mind facing ones acuser. I might be wrong about this legislation or the motives behind it, they may be entirely justified, but some of the shit I've read about these kangaroo courts and the injustices done in them to men by vengful womyn, well, let's say this has my ******** detectors going off

 

2. At the same time as this legislation is going through, I am hearing many stories in the internet about rapes being covered up by the police in continentqal Europe because the perpetrators are muslims/rapefugees

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Under UK law women cannot be charged with rape.

But....whilst asleep, men have 4 - 5 erections per night.

It's about time the law was updated.

What worries me about this drive to increase the number of convictions is it may also fuel the number of false allegations. Often driven by anger because men are becoming savvy, with respect to biased family courts, and don't want to commit long term.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is all getting very scary. The CPS has already been shown to be unwilling to prosecute women for false rape accusations. Now they won't even need to appear in court. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just wonder whether this won't just lead to more acquittals.

After all, the woman can say what she likes in the video. The man, more often than not will deny everything and then it is just her word against his and practically a certain 'not guilty' verdict (the burden of proof being solely on the Crown to prove everything - beyond a reasonable doubt).

The jury will view video testimony as less powerful and will also be highly suspcious of it - I would be!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Errol said:

I just wonder whether this won't just lead to more acquittals.

After all, the woman can say what she likes in the video. The man, more often than not will deny everything and then it is just her word against his and practically a certain 'not guilty' verdict (the burden of proof being solely on the Crown to prove everything - beyond a reasonable doubt).

The jury will view video testimony as less powerful and will also be highly suspcious of it - I would be!

They are pushing it so that the man has the burden of proof to prove consent was given rather than the women having the burden of proof  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/11375667/Men-must-prove-a-woman-said-Yes-under-tough-new-rape-rules.html from the Director of Public Prosecutions no less. So much for innocent before proven guilty.

Had consensual sex but didn't get a consent form signed? Tough luck you're a rapist. Didn't have sex at all with a false accuser and so also didn't get a consent form signed? Tough luck you're also a rapist.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So does this mean a woman can falsely accuse a man of rape, then pre-record a statement and go nowhere near a 'live' courthouse situation, and then just let the man go through hell to try and prove himself innocent in front of a jury?

It's a very convenient way to punish/get revenge on a man; even if he's found innocent you'll put him through utter hell in the process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, JoeDavola said:

So does this mean a woman can falsely accuse a man of rape, then pre-record a statement and go nowhere near a 'live' courthouse situation, and then just let the man go through hell to try and prove himself innocent in front of a jury?

It's a very convenient way to punish/get revenge on a man; even if he's found innocent you'll put him through utter hell in the process.

Women regularly go to prison for making false rape allegations, just google it. It's not a risk-free game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, gibbon said:

They are pushing it so that the man has the burden of proof to prove consent was given

Even a signed declaration before the onset of frictional shenanigans would not be sufficient.

As Karen Straughan explains, consent is something that is given after the act, often in the following days, and the perception of violation is often based on the future lack of willingness of the male party to commit to the relationship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Automotive Engineer said:

point

case in

Thank you for that. The boy is called Tyler Kost. He has just been released after spending three years in prison on remand, and he is on probation for the next fifteen. The judge said of the sentence "it rightfully would not satisfy victims"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many cases in the courts have media restrictions placed on them. So you only hear the half of it... and the half they allow you to hear.

There have been cases where guys have proven their innocence by leaving their mobile phones recording.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Dorkins said:

Women regularly go to prison for making false rape allegations, just google it. It's not a risk-free game.

'Regularly' is pushing it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very biased man-hating Guardian article (as usual) with some stats at least: https://www.theguardian.com/law/2014/dec/01/109-women-prosecuted-false-rape-allegations and how 109 false rape allegation prosecutions in the last 5 years are apparently too many. I'd expect only a handful have resulted in jail sentences for the women, whereas I'm pretty sure every man convicted of rape has been sent to prison. I also wonder how many of these men have been sent down on just one persons word alone.

Interesting also how the image they use is of Eleanor de Freitas without any back story. She made an allegation against the son of a shipping magnet for rape, which failed after a load of solid evidence to the contrary. The CPS refused to prosecute her so the family of the son took out a private prosecution against her and she killed herself rather than face her day in court. Yet she's the victim here?

F*** the Guardian piece of s*** paper

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Millaise said:

Even a signed declaration before the onset of frictional shenanigans would not be sufficient.

As Karen Straughan explains, consent is something that is given after the act, often in the following days, and the perception of violation is often based on the future lack of willingness of the male party to commit to the relationship.

In recent times I've gone to great lengths to get a text message from whoever I might have woken up next too acknowledging that anything thay happened between ourselves was consensual. A friend of mine was falsely accused of rape 17 years ago, went through the courts and the police refused my witness statement  (the girl he was making out with was very willing (I was in the same room on a different couch getting cosy with her friend)), she had a boyfriend so went through some kind of guilt trip the next day and was economical with the truth confessing to him.  Some people still see my friend as a dark force... the consequences are far reaching and life changing, he's been very reluctant to get involved with anyone ever since. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   69 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.