Listener 4847 Demeaning By Lionheart
Crosswords1 min ago
Should Alleged Victims Of Rape Be Allowed To Trestify Via Pre-Recorded Video?
Is Sarah Vine correct that this is worrying?
http://
If a man is accused of rape, personally I think it is absolutely correct that the person doing the accusing should be cross-examined live, but with strong direction from the judge to the defence barrister concerning the tone of the examination.
Allowing a recording is prejudicial to the accused.
http://
If a man is accused of rape, personally I think it is absolutely correct that the person doing the accusing should be cross-examined live, but with strong direction from the judge to the defence barrister concerning the tone of the examination.
Allowing a recording is prejudicial to the 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.
As I understand it, the burden of proof in any trial lies with the prosecution - the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
So it is beholden for the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is a rapist.
It is not the job of the defence to prove that the accused could not have committed the crime, it is their job to use evidence to provide sufficient doubt in the minds of the jury to convince them that conviction is not appropriate.
It sounds like nit-picking, but of such semantics is the legal system constructed.
So it is beholden for the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is a rapist.
It is not the job of the defence to prove that the accused could not have committed the crime, it is their job to use evidence to provide sufficient doubt in the minds of the jury to convince them that conviction is not appropriate.
It sounds like nit-picking, but of such semantics is the legal system constructed.
Naomi - // Jim, is your claim an assumption, a preferred view of the world of feminism, or fact supported by evidence? //
You seem perfectly willing to opine that most feminists are man-haters without evidence - why should Jim provide evidence to support his view, when you fail to produce evidence to support yours?
You seem perfectly willing to opine that most feminists are man-haters without evidence - why should Jim provide evidence to support his view, when you fail to produce evidence to support yours?
To be fair, Naomi actually said "a lot" rather than "most". Of course, that just makes the statement even more meaningless. Is that "a lot" proportionately, or just "a lot" because there are so many actual feminists that it stands to reason that a tiny minority translates into thousands of loud, vicious, screaming, man-haters?
-- answer removed --
I thought a court was somewhere where you had to tell the truth. If the defence are allowed to lie about the victim to win, they must be pretty desperate.
I won my case, but the result was far from good in respect to time served. I wonder how many more women have suffered at the hands of my attacker since his release, as I know that his crimes were escalating at a rate of knots.
I won my case, but the result was far from good in respect to time served. I wonder how many more women have suffered at the hands of my attacker since his release, as I know that his crimes were escalating at a rate of knots.
divebuddy - //I think one of the big problems about rape cases is that the sisterhood have been fairly successful in seeing their mantra - rape is rape is rape - generally accepted. They simply don't accept that some "rapes" are more serious than others. //
I think 'the sisterhood' are absolutely correct in their view that rape is rape.
The difficulty occurs when a situation is not rape, but is made to appear so for a variety of personal reasons, and this clouds the concept of what rape is, and how it should be dealt with, both by the courts, and by society as a whole.
To my way of thinking, and I think 'the sisterhood' would be behind me on this - if a woman is made to endure sext without her consent, then that is rape.
The difficulties occur when some women use the notion of rape to defend unwise decisions involving behaviour, and this of course clouds the water for genuine rape victims, because these cases attract masses more publicity than those of convicted rapists who were guilty of the crime.
So I do believe that rape is rape, and there are no degrees of 'seriousness' - but we ought to look for another legal term when a case is brought where consent may have been given, and is now being withdraw, because clearly that is not rape as 'the sisterhood', or indeed the law, understand it.
I think 'the sisterhood' are absolutely correct in their view that rape is rape.
The difficulty occurs when a situation is not rape, but is made to appear so for a variety of personal reasons, and this clouds the concept of what rape is, and how it should be dealt with, both by the courts, and by society as a whole.
To my way of thinking, and I think 'the sisterhood' would be behind me on this - if a woman is made to endure sext without her consent, then that is rape.
The difficulties occur when some women use the notion of rape to defend unwise decisions involving behaviour, and this of course clouds the water for genuine rape victims, because these cases attract masses more publicity than those of convicted rapists who were guilty of the crime.
So I do believe that rape is rape, and there are no degrees of 'seriousness' - but we ought to look for another legal term when a case is brought where consent may have been given, and is now being withdraw, because clearly that is not rape as 'the sisterhood', or indeed the law, understand it.
I can only find press reports which is unhelpful. I dont think this is the great sea change that seems to be being reported.
Firstly I believe that a defendant should have the right to test the evidence against him. It is an absolutely fundamental human right.
I believe that what is proposed mirrors how children give evidence. The evidence in chief is pre recorded and then sometimes the cross examination is also too. This is designed to ensure "best evidence". There are a number of special measures that can be employed.
Since 1999, it has always been open to the prosecution to make an application for "special measures" and an adult victim of a sexual assault are the types of cases where this is most commonly used. It seems to me that all this is doing is extending the gambit of special measures so that they become automatic rather than permissory.
Firstly I believe that a defendant should have the right to test the evidence against him. It is an absolutely fundamental human right.
I believe that what is proposed mirrors how children give evidence. The evidence in chief is pre recorded and then sometimes the cross examination is also too. This is designed to ensure "best evidence". There are a number of special measures that can be employed.
Since 1999, it has always been open to the prosecution to make an application for "special measures" and an adult victim of a sexual assault are the types of cases where this is most commonly used. It seems to me that all this is doing is extending the gambit of special measures so that they become automatic rather than permissory.
Police don't usually release the name of the accused until forensics have been done and the guilt of the man is certain.
However, newspapers print a man's name whatever, if they can find out the name of the accused. Newspapers have a lot to answer for in determining the guilt or innocence of the public. God help them if they're famous to boot.
However, newspapers print a man's name whatever, if they can find out the name of the accused. Newspapers have a lot to answer for in determining the guilt or innocence of the public. God help them if they're famous to boot.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
deivebuddy - ////The difficulties occur when some women use the notion of rape to defend unwise decisions involving behaviour, and this of course clouds the water for genuine rape victims,//
Or to put it another way, you agree with what I said. //
No, I agree with some of what you said.
I don't agree that 'some rapes are less serious' - that is simply not a sustainable position in my view.
Or to put it another way, you agree with what I said. //
No, I agree with some of what you said.
I don't agree that 'some rapes are less serious' - that is simply not a sustainable position in my view.
divebuddy - // //Police don't usually release the name of the accused until forensics have been done and the guilt of the man is certain. //
Why bother with a trial. He's guilty, the police say so. //
Because everyone has a right to a fair trial - evidence to be presented, and a chance to defend the charges.
Anything other than that amounts to a police state.
Why bother with a trial. He's guilty, the police say so. //
Because everyone has a right to a fair trial - evidence to be presented, and a chance to defend the charges.
Anything other than that amounts to a police state.
-- answer removed --
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.