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

[arknor]

CPS just threw it out after a few months.

even for other crimes everything is pretty much a joke.

people get away with physical assault , even if it's glassing someone in the face or smashing a glass over someones head.
it's not a guaranteed prison sentence like what is wrong with our judges.

btw did you miss this classic

Why did an Old Bailey judge free a violent crack addict twice, lend her £17,000 and even buy her a £144,000 house?

the headlines a bit misleading he didn't buy her a 144,000 house but he did tell her to find a house worth upto 150k, bought it and let her live there.....
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9680071/Why-did-Old-Bailey-judge-free-violent-crack-addict-twice.html

our judges are all mentally ill or something

 

[Tefal]

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. Thats a positive which should be told to every rape victim, yet instead you seem absolutely determined to scare women away from going through with their accusation with your constant "small possibility of conviction" statement over and over and I can't understand why anyone would deliberately try to dissuade women from seeking justice and potentially preventing a rapist from walking free.

I mean I know if I'm ever in the situation where a rape victim asks me whether it's worth taking their allegation to court I certainly won't be saying "The whole process is just additional trauma, with a small possibility of a conviction at the end" so why would YOU do that to a rape victim cheesyboy, why? Why do you want rapists to walk free, why do you want to scare rape victims into withdrawing their allegations with statement like that, why?

It's not "incoherent arguing" I just don't understand.

You are absolutely right I think.

The 66% figure should be pushed to give Hope to victims and support for proceeding and to also help as a "deterrent" to the small number of offenders influenced by that.

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?!

You'll find a lot of these cases the evidence is nothing at all (as there was no violence the only evidence is sex occurred one person says it was consensual one says it wasn't, without a confession there's nothing, because sex isn't illegal in itself so isn't evidence) or it has been too long for any evidence to exist.

 

[krooton]

The very nature of rape being difficult to evidence is why rapists keep raping, they know how well stacked the odds are in their favour.

 

[Tefal]

I've just said, medical evidence of force used in the region down below, would you like me to draw a diagram?

Also previous statements saying he raped her to the police as it was a domestic abuse situation ongoing over years.

I'm not going into great detail of the message but it was very much rape and forced .

What else would you like? What would it take for you to convict? A video?

Also a witness, although too young to testify I guess but social know so one assumes the police do as well.

You sound like someone who enjoys sticking up for the twisted individuals out there, maybe attempt a career in the CPS?

I think he's trying to point out that forceful sex is a thing that some people engage in so isn't by itself evidence.

And if he just said something vile along the lines of how she enjoyed having sex with him that time it's not rhe same as him "saying he raped her" it's just a boyfriend talking about sex with girlfriend.

A court will argue all this of course but there needs to be something solid.

He would need to have mentioned she said no, or that he explicitly forced her which wouldn't normally be how someone like that phrases things.

They are grotesque enough to believe thier own Bull**** about the victim wanting it.

 

[Tefal]

The very nature of rape being difficult to evidence is why rapists keep raping, they know how well stacked the odds are in their favour.

Exactly, rape a woman when shes when she's black out drunk there won't be any evidence beyond intercourse having happened and by the time they wake up and get to a hospital (potentialy having had to get thier rapist to leave first) their blood alcohol will be low and not enough to prove they couldn't consent

 

[Caracus2k]

Medical advice and evidence of forced used?

Text messages that stated forced sex was used, I'm not going to publish word for word for your pleasure, the police were 100% they had him nailed and we're adamant he was getting serious jail time.

Pictures galore and previous statements made after a rape occurred during the abuse.

First hand witness to one assault.

So what needs to be handled more objectively pray tell?

Or is it all a misunderstanding, she had a drink and probably consented?

On the police issue, yes the first time so never bothered again, until she finally cracked again, police finally got onboard, had a good officer who was enthusiastic etc, CPS just threw it out after a few months.

Having been called for jury service and having observed multiple court cases, including those for rape and sexual assault (both concerning cases from a 'domestic' setting and those not) I am quite certain that one (or a combination) of three things is true.

1) you are either not in possession of the full facts and are missing some rather key ones

and/or 2) you are omitting key facts

and/or 3) you have fabricated all or most of this account.

There is rarely much independent corroboration for an actual rape taking place.

You portray an almost 'ideal' case to prosecute, apparently with there being a plethora of compelling evidence on hand.

I know for a fact that the CPS in England will run a prosecution based on one persons word against an other where there is nothing significant to undermine the case (such as an ulterior motive, witnesses giving different accounts / changing their accounts, the complainant having a history of dishonesty etc)


There must have been some quite pertinent facts omitted from the above account or it must not be a true account of the full facts to explain why the CPS would not prosecute.


The CPS have to peer review decisions not to prosecute in sexual cases and complainants can seek a further appeal after that.

Also a witness, although too young to testify I guess but social know so one assumes the police do as well.

There is no such thing as a witness 'too young' to testify in England and Wales. A witness obviously need to be able to have enough grasp of language to be able to explain what they have seen or what happened to them and the police and CPS will employ the services of dedicated intermediaries to provide assistance for taking video interviews and giving evidence at court.

see here for an example of a very young person giving a video interview

A two-year-old girl is believed to have become the youngest person to give evidence in a UK criminal case, after her interview was recorded by a specialist court team.

 

[alchal]

Having been called for jury service and having observed multiple court cases, including those for rape and sexual assault (both concerning cases from a 'domestic' setting and those not) I am quite certain that one (or a combination) of three things is true.

1) you are either not in possession of the full facts and are missing some rather key ones

and/or 2) you are omitting key facts

and/or 3) you have fabricated all or most of this account.

There is rarely much independent corroboration for an actual rape taking place.

You portray an almost 'ideal' case to prosecute, apparently with there being a plethora of compelling evidence on hand.

I know for a fact that the CPS in England will run a prosecution based on one persons word against an other where there is nothing significant to undermine the case (such as an ulterior motive, witnesses giving different accounts / changing their accounts, the complainant having a history of dishonesty etc)


There must have been some quite pertinent facts omitted from the above account or it must not be a true account of the full facts to explain why the CPS would not prosecute.


The CPS have to peer review decisions not to prosecute in sexual cases and complainants can seek a further appeal after that.



There is no such thing as a witness 'too young' to testify in England and Wales. A witness obviously need to be able to have enough grasp of language to be able to explain what they have seen or what happened to them and the police and CPS will employ the services of dedicated intermediaries to provide assistance for taking video interviews and giving evidence at court.

see here for an example of a very young person giving a video interview

A two-year-old girl is believed to have become the youngest person to give evidence in a UK criminal case, after her interview was recorded by a specialist court team.

As for the witness, I have no idea if the witness was used, I know social services know, however I also know how easy it is for them to forget/let slip anything and everything, another service not fit for purpose.

You forgot the medical advice/ proof as well.

For lying? She stuck up for him in some cases in the past where he beat her black and blue from fear.

And you wonder why rape has such a low conviction rate?

So you think the CPS/ Justice system is bullet proof? Because you have witnessed a few cases?