Home and Justice Secretaries 'deeply ashamed' of rape conviction rates.

A family member was raped amongst other things by her ex.

Loads of text messages on his and her phone with him goading her on about it!, pictures of her naked (doesn't count if you can't see the FULL face apparently!)
And the CPS dropped the charges.

Our lass, a social worker, saw the videos/pictures/messages and was, along with the police adamant he was done for.

The police depending on who you get...do their best, the rest however ..not so.

I've mentioned in other threads I can only recommend paying someone to kneecap the rapist as the chances of them facing jail is 1%


The total justice system for rape assault victims is wrong wrong and wrong.
 
are people assuming every single rape allegation is a 100% honest person? and there should be 100% conviction rate?

I bet the "assumed consent" rapes where the victim is too afraid to say no or try to stop the person, likely a partner or friend, will have much lower conviction rates than the forced physical version we are likely all picturing from hearing the word.

Not saying one is worse than the other or anyone is too blame.

but obviously given the circumstances it's a lot harder to prove and get a conviction
 
Tony Edwards said:
Did you not know that this already happens to some extent? There is a special branch that deals with these types of cases.
Click to expand...

I didn't know. I know there are special dedicated officers that work in the sex crimes unit that interview in a more relaxed environment. Though I think it needs to go further. So the person complaining can do the reporting more discreetly.

I also wish the police would crack down harder on the people who make false accusations. At the moment they seem to get a slap on the wrist in most cases. If someone as been proven to be actively lying they should feel some real life punishment, as they are making a mockery and adding a question mark to the real cases. If we had fewer people making false allegations then when real allegations are made they would be taken more seriously.
 
BowdonUK said:
At the moment they seem to get a slap on the wrist in most cases. If someone as been proven to be actively lying they should feel some real life punishment, as they are making a mockery and adding a question mark to the real cases.
Click to expand...
It's probably not easy to filter out a false allegation, any punishment would likely deter actual victims from coming forward since it can be a crime that's hard to prove depending on the situation.

If it's proved beyond all reasonable doubt that they lied and you have text evidence or some such then by all means punish them
 
BowdonUK said:
I also wish the police would crack down harder on the people who make false accusations. At the moment they seem to get a slap on the wrist in most cases. If someone as been proven to be actively lying they should feel some real life punishment, as they are making a mockery and adding a question mark to the real cases. If we had fewer people making false allegations then when real allegations are made they would be taken more seriously.
Click to expand...
The problem there is that those measures are the types of things that could stop someone coming forward when genuine.

False accusation used to be the main defence argument. Im not sure if its changed now.
 
ianh said:
My "argument", as you put it, was to correct your statement "The whole process is just additional trauma, with a small possibility of a conviction at the end" when, at the end there's a 66% chance of conviction should it go to court.
Click to expand...
But the ones that go to court are a tiny minority of those that engage the process. Hence there being but a small possibility of conviction
 
How are they suddenly going to convict more, surely people don't get convicted bacause of a lack of evidence.

If they start convicting people on weaker evidence it's just going to get overturned and they end up getting loads of compensation money.
 
Nasher said:
How are they suddenly going to convict more, surely people don't get convicted bacause of a lack of evidence.

If they start convicting people on weaker evidence it's just going to get overturned and they end up getting loads of compensation money.
Click to expand...
Seems to me that a 66% rate of conviction on 3% of cases actually brought to court, but 27% not taken to court due to 'evidential difficulties ', per Tefal's post, might suggest, intuitively, that perhaps not enough cases are going to court.

Are they really THAT good at pre-judging evidence?!
 
cheesyboy said:
Seems to me that a 66% rate of conviction on 3% of cases actually brought to court, but 27% not taken to court due to 'evidential difficulties ', per Tefal's post, might suggest, intuitively, that perhaps not enough cases are going to court.

Are they really THAT good at pre-judging evidence?!
Click to expand...

There has to be something to make it worth taking to court. If the evidence is laughable it won't get that far.

Unless there is CCTV, or witnesses or something this is going to be a hard one to proove. Most people get raped by someone they know apparently, so DNA evidence won't be much help if they are in frequent close contact with them.
 
Nasher said:
There has to be something to make it worth taking to court. If the evidence is laughable it won't get that far.

Unless there is CCTV, or witnesses or something this is going to be a hard one to proove. Most people get raped by someone they know apparently, so DNA evidence won't be much help if they are in frequent close contact with them.
Click to expand...
Well yes, but a 66% conviction rate on the 'best' 3% of cases. What would the conviction rate be on the next 3%? 40% convictions? 20%? Or are the police etc perfect at filtering the not-guilties out? Seems unlikely.
 
cheesyboy said:
Well yes, but a 66% conviction rate on the 'best' 3% of cases. What would the conviction rate be on the next 3%? 40% convictions? 20%? Or are the police etc perfect at filtering the not-guilties out? Seems unlikely.
Click to expand...

I think they will end up spend loads of money and time changing the processes to keep the wokists happy. But stats won't budge at all. Because it is what it is.
 
Nasher said:
There has to be something to make it worth taking to court. If the evidence is laughable it won't get that far.

Unless there is CCTV, or witnesses or something this is going to be a hard one to proove. Most people get raped by someone they know apparently, so DNA evidence won't be much help if they are in frequent close contact with them.
Click to expand...
What exactly do you mean by laughable?

You seem to have a very low regard for rape or sexual assault victims.
 
Nasher said:
Just saying someone did it with nothing to back it up is laughable. It needs much more than that to go through court.
Click to expand...
claiming it's laughable makes light of the situation.

you could be raped with little to no evidence, I doubt you would be laughing.
I doubt you would find it funny if you were wrongly accused by someone with no evidence either

Do you believe you can give consent whilst drunk? because with your attitude your kinda coming across as someone whom I might suspect holds that opinion
 
Nasher said:
Depends, are both parties drunk? Who is the responsible one?
Click to expand...
so your suggesting if you get drunk it's your own fault someone takes advantage? maybe if the person didn't wear revealing clothing, maybe if that person wasn't so flirty and friendly.

they were asking for it?

oh you thought it was a netflix and chill with a bottle of wine? but she didn't realise that was slang for netflix and intercourse , it's her own fault? if only she didn't get drunk and almost passout


whats next swiping on tinder is consent
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom