Random Irritations

[Foxholer]

Ok, I've just read this post and none subsequent to it. Giving you the benefit of the doubt for writing such rude riposte, perhaps I should have said"one" needs a course on evidence.....etc. The "you" was not intended to mean only you.
But don't you think your rudeness takes away the points of the rest of your post?
It would take a tome for me to give you my reasons why rape allegations etc, but suffice to say it is all about the rules of evidence. What is permitted to be given in a trial and what isn't.
And I do have a background in this area.
Briefly, some offences require corroboration- some in law ( speeding) and some in practice .
In fact, most offences will not be sent for "trial" without something more than an allegation.
E.g. Suppose some chap goes to the Police and makes a statement allegationing you did this that and the other that amounted to careless driving. The first you know about it is when the police call on you and tel you of the allegation and that they are investigating it. They ask you if the allegations are true. You deny them. You admit you were driving your car on that road atround that time but you did not make the moves that the accuser says you did. You did not drive carelessly.
DO you think the police /CPS should send you to court to see which of the two of you the magistrates believed?
Or do you think they should inform the alleger that there isn't no other enough evidence to prosecute?
It is those sorts of things- levels of evidence required by law- which determines decisions to prosecute.

I do believe that some steps can be taken to change the situation, but it involves a change in regard to all crime. The right to remain silent needs "tweaking "
I am concerned that the clamour to make rape convictions easier to obtain is going down a dangerous path. It's the wrong path. E.g. "The complainant should always be believed"
No, the complainant should always be listened to and her/his allegation should be fully and impartially investigated.
Two very different things.

Oh, I know all that!
You've answered several of the qustions I asked. Thanks.
But the key one - how to change the low prosecution rate - is still unanswered! What (additional) evidence should the complainant ensure is secured for example that would get boxes marked 'Y' cf the 'N' as currently. That's an education process that CPS, Police and other agencies should be actively engaged in imo.

 

[Deleted member 23270]

Oh, I know all that!
You've answered several of the qustions I asked. Thanks.
But the key one - how to change the low prosecution rate - is still unanswered! What (additional) evidence should the complainant ensure is secured for example that would get boxes marked 'Y' cf the 'N' as currently. That's an education process that CPS, Police and other agencies should be actively engaged in imo.

Have you not read what people have posted? To get to court there needs to be EVIDENCE or at least something to substantiate the allegations.

 

[Foxholer]

Have you not read what people have posted? To get to court there needs to be EVIDENCE or at least something to substantiate the allegations.

You don't appear to have read/absorbed the third and subsequent lines of my post. I know and agree with your 2nd sentence btw.

 

[Fade and Die]

A good friend of mine is quite senior within the CPS. People join the CPS to prosecute bad people, not to find loopholes to get them off, not that you were suggesting that but you get my point hopefully. They want to prosecute, that is their aim.

Their role though is to review evidence provided by the police and to judge if their is sufficient to enable a successful prosecution. Not a guaranteed prosecution but a reasonable chance that it will be successful. If the evidence isn't there than they will reject it. Trust me, that hurts them but that is their job.

Filling the courts with cases that will fail helps no one, that is partly why the CPS exists.

Just from watching various programs it seems most cases fail to come to court because its very hard to prove or disprove consent, A private act between two people with both having different views of the proceedings means unless there is corroborating evidence these things often just become a case of he said she said. Also the defence solicitors will do there best to discredit the accuser which must be absolutely horrendous after what they have been through. I can see why a lot of women/girls want to just put it behind them.

 

[GB72]

You don't appear to have read/absorbed the third and subsequent lines of my post. I know and agree with your 2nd sentence btw.

I am not sure that there is an easy answer to your point, sadly. Often the only witnesses to the incident are the 2 contesting parties. In many cases there is not even an argument that the act took place and so the investigation is based on one of consent and, again, not meaning to sound overly harsh but I am trying to be analytical based on my basic law training in that area, but how do you prove or disprove matters of consent. Violence or signs of a struggle or defensive/offensive wounds can help support a case but, as I am sure that we are all aware, rape is not always overtly violent and so you are then left with 2 parties with opposing views and no corroboration on either side. It is, simply put, just very difficult to prosecute beyond reasoable doubt.

 

[Foxholer]

I am not sure that there is an easy answer to your point, sadly. Often the only witnesses to the incident are the 2 contesting parties. In many cases there is not even an argument that the act took place and so the investigation is based on one of consent and, again, not meaning to sound overly harsh but I am trying to be analytical based on my basic law training in that area, but how do you prove or disprove matters of consent. Violence or signs of a struggle or defensive/offensive wounds can help support a case but, as I am sure that we are all aware, rape is not always overtly violent and so you are then left with 2 parties with opposing views and no corroboration on either side. It is, simply put, just very difficult to prosecute beyond reasoable doubt.

I agree. I've seen suggestions that the 'beyond reasonable doubt' should be changed for some crimes - with (available) sentences adjusted accordingly, but that's a huge step for 'the law'.
And, of course, there's always the possibility of malicious accusation - an even more heinous crime imo!

 

[GB72]

I agree. I've seen suggestions that the 'beyond reasonable doubt' should be changed for some crimes - with sentences adjusted accoringly, but that's a huge step for 'the law'.
And, of course, there's always the possibility of malicious accusation - an even more heinous crime imo!

This is it. I think a reduction in the burden of proof would be dangerous bearing in mind that even being accused and proved innocent is enough to ruin a life (please do not think that I am for one minute disregarding the life changing impact on the victim) and, as you mention, malicious prosecution remains a risk. My only thought is easier access to background recording devices. Many houses have a phone or an Alexa around and we all know that these pick up and record background audio and that could make a difference in prosecution.

Even if you lower the burden of proof to the balance of probabilities as you see in civil trials, you are still going to have a similar issue as to proof of consent when there is no corroboratiing physical evidence.

 

[Foxholer]

This is it. I think a reduction in the burden of proof would be dangerous bearing in mind that even being accused and proved innocent is enough to ruin a life (please do not think that I am for one minute disregarding the life changing impact on the victim) and, as you mention, malicious prosecution remains a risk. My only thought is easier access to background recording devices. Many houses have a phone or an Alexa around and we all know that these pick up and record background audio and that could make a difference in prosecution.

Even if you lower the burden of proof to the balance of probabilities as you see in civil trials, you are still going to have a similar issue as to proof of consent when there is no corroboratiing physical evidence.

Agreed.
And 'balance of probabilities' is not enough imo. Something 'stronger' but less than BRD is would be required.

 

[drdel]

IMO, abuse is a subject of its own and highly situation specific and emotional and best taken to a thread of its own

 

[Swinglowandslow]

Agreed.
And 'balance of probabilities' is not enough imo. Something 'stronger' but less than BRD is required.

Come on, you cannot convict and imprison someone for such a thing if there is a reasonable doubt.
Could you do that, as a juror, with the knowledge that you had a doubt as to his guilt?....

 

[Foxholer]

Come on, you cannot convict and imprison someone for such a thing if there is a reasonable doubt.
Could you do that, as a juror, with the knowledge that you had a doubt as to his guilt?....

See post 29245. And read it carefully!

 

[Swinglowandslow]

See post 29245

Well, yes, I read it, but your later post 29247 changes that.
"Less than BRD"??

It is not at all an"easy" subject.?

 

[fundy]

Raith Rovers latest signing

 

[Beedee]

Would this be an appropriate moment to suggest that most of the last 150 posts imply we're not really talking about "Random Irritations" anymore?

 

[Imurg]

Would this be an appropriate moment to suggest that most of the last 150 posts imply we're not really talking about "Random Irritations" anymore?

I think we should have an unwritten rule for this thread..if someone's irritation initiates more than 10 replies then it needs its own thread....

 

[Foxholer]

Well, yes, I read it, but your later post 29247 changes that.
"Less than BRD"??

It is not at all an"easy" subject.?

It wasn't meant to, but I can see how you interpreted it as doing so. 29247 updated to, hopefully remove confusion (doubt?).

 

[fundy]

I think we should have an unwritten rule for this thread..if someone's irritation initiates more than 10 replies then it needs its own thread....

and people question using the ignore function

 

[Deleted member 16999]

I think we should have an unwritten rule for this thread..if someone's irritation initiates more than 10 replies then it needs its own thread....

I thought we already had an unwritten rule that people couldn’t question others random irritation?

 

[Orikoru]

I thought we already had an unwritten rule that people couldn’t question others random irritation?

 

[theoneandonly]

I thought we already had an unwritten rule that people couldn’t question others random irritation?

I think it's just something you made up.