| No means no on 14:21 - Oct 19 with 2595 views | SouperJim |
It's the age old problem of one person's word against another, the defence will always try and give evidence of consent and with sexting becoming commonplace it's easier to put doubt in the mind of a jury.
I think what probably needs to go hand in hand with this is increased awareness of how sexting makes you vulnerable to predatory behaviour. |  |
|  |
| No means no on 14:26 - Oct 19 with 2562 views | J2BLUE |
Seems common sense really. The whole short skirt = asking for it idea is ridiculous. |  |
| |
| No means no on 14:36 - Oct 19 with 2528 views | gtsb1966 |
| No means no on 14:21 - Oct 19 by SouperJim |
It's the age old problem of one person's word against another, the defence will always try and give evidence of consent and with sexting becoming commonplace it's easier to put doubt in the mind of a jury.
I think what probably needs to go hand in hand with this is increased awareness of how sexting makes you vulnerable to predatory behaviour. |
I couldn't agree more with your last paragraph. |  | | |
| No means no on 17:48 - Oct 19 with 2429 views | factual_blue |
| No means no on 14:26 - Oct 19 by J2BLUE |
Seems common sense really. The whole short skirt = asking for it idea is ridiculous. |
Yeah, but Ched Evans... |  |
| |
| No means no on 18:17 - Oct 19 with 2366 views | bazza |
There was a program on not so long ago about 3 guys falsely accused of raping woman, one of which, when it went to court, it came out that no one had checked the messages on his phone he had been sent from the victim.. when they did, the case collapsed and the woman in question admitted she had lied... as awful as it must be for the victim in genuine cases, I think they should be considered , as those 3 men had their lives ruined, and one committed suicide... |  | | |
| No means no on 18:49 - Oct 19 with 2328 views | Herbivore |
| No means no on 18:17 - Oct 19 by bazza |
There was a program on not so long ago about 3 guys falsely accused of raping woman, one of which, when it went to court, it came out that no one had checked the messages on his phone he had been sent from the victim.. when they did, the case collapsed and the woman in question admitted she had lied... as awful as it must be for the victim in genuine cases, I think they should be considered , as those 3 men had their lives ruined, and one committed suicide... |
False allegations are a tiny, tiny proportion of rape complaints. |  |
| |
| No means no on 18:52 - Oct 19 with 2326 views | pointofblue |
| No means no on 18:49 - Oct 19 by Herbivore |
False allegations are a tiny, tiny proportion of rape complaints. |
Whilst I agree that’s no comfort for the gentlemen in this case, especially the family of the man who killed himself. |  |
| |
| No means no on 18:54 - Oct 19 with 2312 views | bazza |
| No means no on 18:49 - Oct 19 by Herbivore |
False allegations are a tiny, tiny proportion of rape complaints. |
I agree, and like I said for genuine cases it’s got to be awful to be interrogated after something so awful, but can you totally disregard messages if it stops miscarriages of justice and devastating the lives of the falsely accused..?? | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| No means no on 19:11 - Oct 19 with 2278 views | Herbivore |
| No means no on 18:52 - Oct 19 by pointofblue |
Whilst I agree that’s no comfort for the gentlemen in this case, especially the family of the man who killed himself. |
Of course. But when the scale of genuine rape allegations and the awful impact that has on victims and their families massively, massively dwarfs the small number of false allegations it's a rather odd contribution to a thread about rape. It strikes me as an attempt to create a dangerous false equivalence. | |
| |
| No means no on 19:13 - Oct 19 with 2262 views | Herbivore |
| No means no on 18:54 - Oct 19 by bazza |
I agree, and like I said for genuine cases it’s got to be awful to be interrogated after something so awful, but can you totally disregard messages if it stops miscarriages of justice and devastating the lives of the falsely accused..?? |
Try reading the article. It's all there. | |
| |
| No means no on 19:30 - Oct 19 with 2241 views | jeera |
| No means no on 18:52 - Oct 19 by pointofblue |
Whilst I agree that’s no comfort for the gentlemen in this case, especially the family of the man who killed himself. |
It's a tricky one in the sense that there may well be evidence that can help to prove a case one way or the other, if only the information available wasn't used so cynically by some prosecution and/or defence lawyers.
Having one's life on trial whilst being the victim of a sex crime must be unfathomably appalling. I cannot imagine what it must be like for a girl/woman who has suffered abuse and then has to have her private life laid bare, as it were.
It's terrible that common decency cannot be relied on when dealing with these cases. If there's anything in there to protect the victim then it should be accessed and of course if there might be evidence that vindicates an accused then that has to be accessible too.
Unfortunately the way this information has been abused in the most horrific way too many times.
Sex chatter doesn't equate to consent in person so maybe laws could be passed to filter what content can and cannot be used.
To think people have escaped conviction because a court has been allowed to hear a girl's past exploits, as though that is somehow indicative of her every action and the consequences of a potential attack is therefore fair play. |  |
| |
| No means no on 19:55 - Oct 19 with 2192 views | pointofblue |
| No means no on 19:30 - Oct 19 by jeera |
It's a tricky one in the sense that there may well be evidence that can help to prove a case one way or the other, if only the information available wasn't used so cynically by some prosecution and/or defence lawyers.
Having one's life on trial whilst being the victim of a sex crime must be unfathomably appalling. I cannot imagine what it must be like for a girl/woman who has suffered abuse and then has to have her private life laid bare, as it were.
It's terrible that common decency cannot be relied on when dealing with these cases. If there's anything in there to protect the victim then it should be accessed and of course if there might be evidence that vindicates an accused then that has to be accessible too.
Unfortunately the way this information has been abused in the most horrific way too many times.
Sex chatter doesn't equate to consent in person so maybe laws could be passed to filter what content can and cannot be used.
To think people have escaped conviction because a court has been allowed to hear a girl's past exploits, as though that is somehow indicative of her every action and the consequences of a potential attack is therefore fair play. |
Yes, I agree. Each exhibit should be considered at face value rather than being exaggerated or used inappropriately. Past exploits should not permissible in court. | |
| |
| No means no on 20:31 - Oct 19 with 2124 views | Gogs |
i've sat on a jury on a rape trial, well over 20 years ago. If my experience is anything to go by, it's tough for all concerned who aren't used to being in court. This was obviously way before sexting or anything like that.
Alleged victim and accused knew each other well. Were out p!ssing it up on a weekend, landed up in bed together. This much was not in doubt. Pretty much everything else was. Alleged victim was a hopeless witness, her version of events was very unclear and inconsistent, she came across as having been put up to it by her housemate who was very cocky and thought she knew better then the barristers (including the barrister of
alleged victim) and kept arguing when she'd been proved incorrect.
Accused claimed he had drunk around 30 (thirty) pints of Stella that day. Which struck me as fairly unlikely (he wasn't exactly a big chap) for a start, and there were numerous other holes in the rest of his testimony. But the crux of the matter was, and still is, the question of consent and who said what to whom and when. As I recall it was something along the lines of she claimed to have said 'don't' and he thought she said 'go on'. One person's word against another, neither of them at all convincing.
When the jury retired we took about an hour and a half to reach a 10-2 majority not guilty verdict. On the evidence presented there was no other option for me. One woman on the jury didn't get the concept of trial by jury at all, she was adamant she wanted to convict him because he 'looked like a rapist'. I forget why the other person wanted to convict. It was tough, he might have raped her, but no way was there anything like 'proof beyond reasonable doubt'. When it boils down to one person's word against another, can you really do anything else?
If mobile phone evidence is to be used there must be equal access to phones belonging to alleged victims and accused lawyers on both sides to prevent miscarriages of justice on either side. |  | | |
| No means no on 20:33 - Oct 19 with 2107 views | gtsb1966 |
| No means no on 20:31 - Oct 19 by Gogs |
i've sat on a jury on a rape trial, well over 20 years ago. If my experience is anything to go by, it's tough for all concerned who aren't used to being in court. This was obviously way before sexting or anything like that.
Alleged victim and accused knew each other well. Were out p!ssing it up on a weekend, landed up in bed together. This much was not in doubt. Pretty much everything else was. Alleged victim was a hopeless witness, her version of events was very unclear and inconsistent, she came across as having been put up to it by her housemate who was very cocky and thought she knew better then the barristers (including the barrister of
alleged victim) and kept arguing when she'd been proved incorrect.
Accused claimed he had drunk around 30 (thirty) pints of Stella that day. Which struck me as fairly unlikely (he wasn't exactly a big chap) for a start, and there were numerous other holes in the rest of his testimony. But the crux of the matter was, and still is, the question of consent and who said what to whom and when. As I recall it was something along the lines of she claimed to have said 'don't' and he thought she said 'go on'. One person's word against another, neither of them at all convincing.
When the jury retired we took about an hour and a half to reach a 10-2 majority not guilty verdict. On the evidence presented there was no other option for me. One woman on the jury didn't get the concept of trial by jury at all, she was adamant she wanted to convict him because he 'looked like a rapist'. I forget why the other person wanted to convict. It was tough, he might have raped her, but no way was there anything like 'proof beyond reasonable doubt'. When it boils down to one person's word against another, can you really do anything else?
If mobile phone evidence is to be used there must be equal access to phones belonging to alleged victims and accused lawyers on both sides to prevent miscarriages of justice on either side. |
If I drank thirty pints in a day I wouldn't be able to raise a smile let alone anything else!!!! | | | |
| No means no on 20:39 - Oct 19 with 2088 views | Gogs |
| No means no on 20:33 - Oct 19 by gtsb1966 |
If I drank thirty pints in a day I wouldn't be able to raise a smile let alone anything else!!!! |
well quite. | | | |
| No means no on 13:16 - Oct 20 with 1903 views | SouperJim |
| No means no on 19:11 - Oct 19 by Herbivore |
Of course. But when the scale of genuine rape allegations and the awful impact that has on victims and their families massively, massively dwarfs the small number of false allegations it's a rather odd contribution to a thread about rape. It strikes me as an attempt to create a dangerous false equivalence. |
I think it's an entirely relevant contribution and given the sensitivity of the topic a bit unnecessary to accuse someone of making an unfair comparison. He was specifically referencing the impact of mobile phone evidence in achieving a correct outcome. | |
| |
| No means no on 13:32 - Oct 20 with 1874 views | tractorboy1978 |
| No means no on 20:31 - Oct 19 by Gogs |
i've sat on a jury on a rape trial, well over 20 years ago. If my experience is anything to go by, it's tough for all concerned who aren't used to being in court. This was obviously way before sexting or anything like that.
Alleged victim and accused knew each other well. Were out p!ssing it up on a weekend, landed up in bed together. This much was not in doubt. Pretty much everything else was. Alleged victim was a hopeless witness, her version of events was very unclear and inconsistent, she came across as having been put up to it by her housemate who was very cocky and thought she knew better then the barristers (including the barrister of
alleged victim) and kept arguing when she'd been proved incorrect.
Accused claimed he had drunk around 30 (thirty) pints of Stella that day. Which struck me as fairly unlikely (he wasn't exactly a big chap) for a start, and there were numerous other holes in the rest of his testimony. But the crux of the matter was, and still is, the question of consent and who said what to whom and when. As I recall it was something along the lines of she claimed to have said 'don't' and he thought she said 'go on'. One person's word against another, neither of them at all convincing.
When the jury retired we took about an hour and a half to reach a 10-2 majority not guilty verdict. On the evidence presented there was no other option for me. One woman on the jury didn't get the concept of trial by jury at all, she was adamant she wanted to convict him because he 'looked like a rapist'. I forget why the other person wanted to convict. It was tough, he might have raped her, but no way was there anything like 'proof beyond reasonable doubt'. When it boils down to one person's word against another, can you really do anything else?
If mobile phone evidence is to be used there must be equal access to phones belonging to alleged victims and accused lawyers on both sides to prevent miscarriages of justice on either side. |
The case you've described is far from rare and makes up a fairly significant number of rape cases/allegations. Where alcohol is involved it becomes seriously convoluted for both parties themselves let alone a third party witness who is trying to make sense of it. | | | |
| No means no on 14:05 - Oct 20 with 1844 views | Half_Idiot |
| No means no on 18:54 - Oct 19 by bazza |
I agree, and like I said for genuine cases it’s got to be awful to be interrogated after something so awful, but can you totally disregard messages if it stops miscarriages of justice and devastating the lives of the falsely accused..?? |
I didn't think they were disregarding messages entirely?
My understanding was that any sexually explicit messages prior to the alleged rape were disregarded, as obviously it is not consent. But if messages were to sent post the alleged rape that implied consent was given then they may be used as evidence for the defence. |  | | |
| No means no on 14:07 - Oct 20 with 1841 views | textbackup |
| No means no on 18:49 - Oct 19 by Herbivore |
False allegations are a tiny, tiny proportion of rape complaints. |
so matey that killed himself doesn't matter? |  |
| |
| No means no on 14:12 - Oct 20 with 1824 views | BiGDonnie |
| No means no on 20:31 - Oct 19 by Gogs |
i've sat on a jury on a rape trial, well over 20 years ago. If my experience is anything to go by, it's tough for all concerned who aren't used to being in court. This was obviously way before sexting or anything like that.
Alleged victim and accused knew each other well. Were out p!ssing it up on a weekend, landed up in bed together. This much was not in doubt. Pretty much everything else was. Alleged victim was a hopeless witness, her version of events was very unclear and inconsistent, she came across as having been put up to it by her housemate who was very cocky and thought she knew better then the barristers (including the barrister of
alleged victim) and kept arguing when she'd been proved incorrect.
Accused claimed he had drunk around 30 (thirty) pints of Stella that day. Which struck me as fairly unlikely (he wasn't exactly a big chap) for a start, and there were numerous other holes in the rest of his testimony. But the crux of the matter was, and still is, the question of consent and who said what to whom and when. As I recall it was something along the lines of she claimed to have said 'don't' and he thought she said 'go on'. One person's word against another, neither of them at all convincing.
When the jury retired we took about an hour and a half to reach a 10-2 majority not guilty verdict. On the evidence presented there was no other option for me. One woman on the jury didn't get the concept of trial by jury at all, she was adamant she wanted to convict him because he 'looked like a rapist'. I forget why the other person wanted to convict. It was tough, he might have raped her, but no way was there anything like 'proof beyond reasonable doubt'. When it boils down to one person's word against another, can you really do anything else?
If mobile phone evidence is to be used there must be equal access to phones belonging to alleged victims and accused lawyers on both sides to prevent miscarriages of justice on either side. |
I think her housemate was called Karen. |  |
| |
| No means no on 14:15 - Oct 20 with 1810 views | textbackup |
| No means no on 14:12 - Oct 20 by BiGDonnie |
I think her housemate was called Karen. |
I don't get this Karen thing, seen it all over the place | |
| |
| No means no on 14:36 - Oct 20 with 1781 views | C_HealyIsAPleasure |
LOL at the Sainsburys tweet exchange in that article
|  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
