Assisted Dying, Here's Where It...
News2 mins ago
Rape Victims Told To Hand Over Mobile Phones Or See Attackers Walk Free.
Thoughts?
https:/
I don't like the banner headline - the use of the word "attackers" suggests guilt has been decided before a trial: 'Accused' would have been a more appropriate word to use....but that's by the by.
I completely understand Olivia's point of view when she states "My phone documents many of the most personal moments in my life and the thought of strangers combing through it, to try to use it against me, makes me feel like I'm being violated once again." BUT, what if buried within those personal moments reveals messages that confirms the innocence of the accused?
On balance this seems like a good idea as (hopefully) it will stop the pernicious false accusations that can ruin the lives of those falsely accused.
https:/
I don't like the banner headline - the use of the word "attackers" suggests guilt has been decided before a trial: 'Accused' would have been a more appropriate word to use....but that's by the by.
I completely understand Olivia's point of view when she states "My phone documents many of the most personal moments in my life and the thought of strangers combing through it, to try to use it against me, makes me feel like I'm being violated once again." BUT, what if buried within those personal moments reveals messages that confirms the innocence of the accused?
On balance this seems like a good idea as (hopefully) it will stop the pernicious false accusations that can ruin the lives of those falsely accused.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Deskdiary. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I get why but surely all they want is any contact with the accused/accuser and they can get that from the phone companies. Bit of a sledge hammer to crack a nut if you ask me. Also most of the cases that they refer to are caused by the prosecution withholding said evidence until the last minute or coming clean when it emerges another way. As usual the CPS are being a useless shower.
The police want to check that accusers did not have an undisclosed relationship with the accused. The most high profile case was one where the accuser was later shown to have pestered the accused for sex after the alleged incident. I cannot think of any reason why he did not say this in his defence, and provide his own mobile as evidence.
The police case seems to be that there might be evidence on the accuser's mobile that would undermine the rape claim. This argument is riddled
The police case seems to be that there might be evidence on the accuser's mobile that would undermine the rape claim. This argument is riddled
The police want to check that accusers did not have an undisclosed relationship with the accused. The most high profile case was one where the accuser was later shown to have pestered the accused for sex after the alleged incident. I cannot think of any reason why he did not say this in his defence, and provide his own mobile as evidence.
The police case seems to be that there might be evidence on the accuser's mobile that would undermine the rape claim. This argument is riddled with loopholes and judgments. Evidence of sexual promiscuity, for example, does not make rape any less of an offence.
Rape is as much about power as it is about sex. By choosing to deprive the accuser of their mobile without sufficient grounds is tantamount to continuing the abuse. There is so much personal information on a smartphone, and the police would need to comb through all of it to determine if any of it is relevant. I would not want to give a stranger access to messages to and from my family members at times of distress, for instance. The police are not above data breaches or unauthorised access to information.
Why are the police so keen to undermine rape allegations but not others? If I am accused of stealing a TV from someone's living room at dead of night, I would expect them to prove they owned the item in the first place, and that they had not sold it in an insurance scam. Our legal system is set up to reduce risk of unjust convictions, so the defence need to be able to confirm that an offence actually took place, but there is no proposal to seize mobiles from those claiming to have been burgled.
The police case seems to be that there might be evidence on the accuser's mobile that would undermine the rape claim. This argument is riddled with loopholes and judgments. Evidence of sexual promiscuity, for example, does not make rape any less of an offence.
Rape is as much about power as it is about sex. By choosing to deprive the accuser of their mobile without sufficient grounds is tantamount to continuing the abuse. There is so much personal information on a smartphone, and the police would need to comb through all of it to determine if any of it is relevant. I would not want to give a stranger access to messages to and from my family members at times of distress, for instance. The police are not above data breaches or unauthorised access to information.
Why are the police so keen to undermine rape allegations but not others? If I am accused of stealing a TV from someone's living room at dead of night, I would expect them to prove they owned the item in the first place, and that they had not sold it in an insurance scam. Our legal system is set up to reduce risk of unjust convictions, so the defence need to be able to confirm that an offence actually took place, but there is no proposal to seize mobiles from those claiming to have been burgled.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.