Government Rape Proposals

rynnor

Rockhound
Moderator
Joined
Dec 26, 2003
Messages
9,353
After the extremely well publicised Aberystwyth Uni student case where she couldnt remember if she had consented and also after the extremely distorted Amnesty survey on rape the government is looking to move on this area.

The whole white paper is here - http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/consultation_rape_290306.pdf?view=Binary

The purpose is slightly contradictory wanting to increase convictions without interfering with the burden of proof - its hard to see how the one can be achieved without affecting the other...

There are 4 proposals - 1. Capacity - they are considering whether to legally define capacity so that for example in the student case there could be some kind of presumption that she hadn't consented - this is the most serious area to change - a definition could have effects far wider than just rape cases - it could lead to a general defense to other crimes if performed whilst a person was drunk for example.

2. Expert Evidence - despite the recent trouble expert witnesses have caused in terms of cot death baby mis-carriages the government (alarmed by the amnesty survey that got tons of coverage and very little analysis) is considering bringing in expert witnesses to say that everything the complainant did was reasonable due to her psychological state etc. This is currently forbidden and use of experts to bolster the complainants evidence will get you a mis-trial.

The worst thing proposed under this is "The expert may give evidence on 'why victims have incomplete, discrepant or inconsistent memories of the incident' !!!

3. First complaint - this one seems fairly sensible although it will allow more use of hearsay evidence which is generally in-admissable in UK courts...

4. More use of Video evidence - which is ok but they are also proposing that the prosecution can ask the complainant supplementary (i.e. leading) questions before they face cross examination from the defence. The prosecution also gets to decide whether or not to use the video the complainant initially made - so if they have changed their story after advice from the prosecution team the defence wont get access to it...

Its all rather sad really - it would be easy to raise the conviction rate if they prosecuted less cases - i.e. if the CPS dropped cases that never stood a cat in hells chance (as they are meant to do) - but because the CPS have quotas (just like the police) they fall over themselves to prosecute these cases.

Its always a problem when laws get made in response to a single case - I hope most of this lot gets dumped - I doubt it tho.
 

Tom

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
17,179
"We're not getting enough successful rape convictions!"

"Maybe because they weren't all raped"

"Lies! Lock those evil men up!"
 

Wij

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
18,185
Dodgy ground tbh. Our rape laws are probably fairly fair currently in the existing sense of "innocent until proven guilty". The problem is that a lot of rape cases are one word against another and proof is therefore not forthcoming. This hardly benefits geninely raped women and falsely accused men. Whether the solution is to put the burden of proof on the bloke though is a very thorny issue. Drunken shags have been part of human culture for as long as there was drink. I'd hate to be a young lad if these laws came in. Similarly though I'd hate to be a young lass in the age of Rohypnol.

:/
 

Meatballs

One of Freddy's beloved
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
105
Wij said:
Our rape laws are probably fairly fair currently in the existing sense of "innocent until proven guilty".

Cept a false rape allegation can still completely screw a bloke over even if found not guilty, or the case doesn't come to court. ><
 

JBP|

Part of the furniture
Joined
Dec 19, 2003
Messages
1,360
The conclusion that i came too is as follows....

If you end up having sex with someone who is drunk, Get written consent beforehand.


I reckon keeping the consent form on file for six months should be enough.
 

babs

Can't get enough of FH
Joined
Dec 30, 2003
Messages
1,595
rynnor said:
The purpose is slightly contradictory wanting to increase convictions without interfering with the burden of proof - its hard to see how the one can be achieved without affecting the other...

There are 4 proposals - 1. Capacity - Did she have a bucket?

:D

What a bunch of arse.
 

Tilda

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
5,755
I read an interesting article in the times, about a mother whos 13 year old son got accused of "rape" by a 14 year old girl. What eventually transpired was the girl gave him a hand job in the park and some kids at school found out, she got teased, so the obvious thing to do was claim she was raped. :eek7:
What was really interesting was the way the police reacted. She ofc got rushed into counceling and everybody fusses over her, the boy is handcuffed and lead out of the parents house by 2 huge police officers. He is DNA'ed and spends iirc a night in the cells. Does he get help, councelling, the works? Does he fuck? He's treated like a paedo or rapist fromt the moment the allegations occur. He didnt even get a police appology at the end of it all.

Annyway!

rynnor said:
There are 4 proposals - 1. Capacity - they are considering whether to legally define capacity so that for example in the student case there could be some kind of presumption that she hadn't consented - this is the most serious area to change - a definition could have effects far wider than just rape cases - it could lead to a general defense to other crimes if performed whilst a person was drunk for example.
I fail to see how this would work, if its presumed no consent is given, it would increase convictions, but thats not going to give rise to a defence the way I see it. In addition, if theres a presumtion of no consent, what do they want people to do, just in the heat of the moment say "Baby, before we shag, could you sign and date this 12 page disclaimer please" :rolleyes: I dont see it happening.

rynnor said:
2. Expert Evidence - despite the recent trouble expert witnesses have caused in terms of cot death baby mis-carriages the government (alarmed by the amnesty survey that got tons of coverage and very little analysis) is considering bringing in expert witnesses to say that everything the complainant did was reasonable due to her psychological state etc. This is currently forbidden and use of experts to bolster the complainants evidence will get you a mis-trial.
But similarly if she gets an expert to say "omg I was psycho because I was drunk, no consent mofo!" You can challenge it, although I think it would only serve to increase costs and the time a case takes.


rynnor said:
4. More use of Video evidence - which is ok but they are also proposing that the prosecution can ask the complainant supplementary (i.e. leading) questions before they face cross examination from the defence. The prosecution also gets to decide whether or not to use the video the complainant initially made - so if they have changed their story after advice from the prosecution team the defence wont get access to it...
It seems that basicly this and the expert evidence bits are both attempts to allow the girl to give her side of the story with as much weight as possible. I'm not sure I like the video evidence because it allows the prosecution to effectivley coach the girl through her story in private, something you can't do when shes in the court room.
 

WPKenny

Resident Freddy
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
1,348
Rape is bad but these proposals seems a bit idealistic to me.

Only thing I can think of is for someone to use their phone to take a quick vid of the girl saying "yes". Most young people these days have video phones.

Otherwise, just be really damn careful.
 

Tom

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
17,179
Or how about:

"So Mr X, in what way did Miss Y give permission?"

"Well, she undressed in front of me, lay on the bed, and spread her legs."

"But did she actually say 'you have my permission to engage in sexual intercourse with me'?"

"Er no not really, but she did look longingly at my willy"

"I rest my case M'Lud, guilty as charged"
 

~Yuckfou~

Lovely person
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
2,594
I hoped this thread was going to be about a load of illegals taking Blair up the chuff. :/
 

rynnor

Rockhound
Moderator
Joined
Dec 26, 2003
Messages
9,353
Wij said:
Drunken shags have been part of human culture for as long as there was drink. I'd hate to be a young lad if these laws came in. Similarly though I'd hate to be a young lass in the age of Rohypnol.

:/

Actually existing laws would make giving any substance (such as rohypnol) create a presumption that consent was not given so thats already covered - the problem is more over the drunken shag - without making the odds stacked against the defendant its hard to see how they can increase convictions when it comes down to his word v hers.

Rape is such an emotive crime and the stigma associated with false accusations is huge, the problem with the crown falling backwards over itself to get them to come forward is that there will be more false accusations and it will be equally hard to disprove them.

Individual Police officers have targets to reach on these types of crimes as set by the home office so the whole system requires an increasing number of racist/homophobic/sex crimes to be reported and unsurprisingly they are - this is why you'll get little interest when reporting a burglary etc but if your reporting a crime that lets them tick a box theyll be right over...

Not the officers fault - just the kind of crap they have to put up with these days - they have to focus their time on the crimes the home office chooses.

Edit - its interesting that the figures of the relatively small number of rape cases that get convicted assumes that all the other cases were actually rapes that took place but just couldnt be proven - this is a massive assumption but nowhere do I see the press challenging the figures on this rather obvious basis...
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom