Trying, yes, but not investigating. The police always start from the assumption that the accuser is telling the truth, no matter how ridiculous his/her claim is.
Take this example. http://www.eastbourneherald.co.uk/news/ ... _1_3140508

I doubt that the police or anyone who read the original newspaper article thought it anything but total bollocks. Passing out for 12 hours or more, them just walking home? I don't have any answers, but starting an investigation with no evidence of a crime having been committed is always going to be problematical.

_________________
Sick Left-wing Zealot.

Yep, both bollocks. I suppose of there were no benefit cheats no one would accuse all people on benefits of being cheats? Not the accuser's fault at all.

_________________
MY COMMENTS ARE FROM THE HORSES MOUTH AND ARE ALL FACTS

So you're saying that the "presumption of innocence" (a principle dating back millenia and upon which the entire legal framework in this country is built) is somehow a bad thing? People are innocent until proven guilty, and to suggest that this should ever not be the case is frankly stupid. As for people being questioned about their character in court, that again is a bedrock of the legal system, people should be able to defend themselves using whatever means are necessary, and again to suggest otherwise is a massively retrograde step. And by retrograde I mean taking us back to some time between the Bronze and Iron ages.



The logic is undeniable. If there are no false claims of rape that by definition makes all claims of rape true.

_________________
"Even when you're a super-computer with an IQ of 2000 it's brown trousers time."

Reclaiming "methinks" for the nation

Latest blog post - 2011 - a review (updated 07/10)

The presumption of innocence, an idea that it might be good to extend to people who report sexual assault.

_________________
Blog...http://itsjustahobby.wordpress.com/

Soon, if we are not prudent, millions of people will be watching each other starve to death through expensive television sets. Nye Bevan

I'll apologise in advance for the forthcoming rant-ette, but this is something that has been bugging me for years because it rankles with my inner (and outer, to be honest) pedant, and it feckin annoys me because it's such a common mis-usage.

People are NOT innocent until proved guilty. They're PRESUMED innocent until proved guilty.
That "presumed" is pretty important if language is to make sense. Just think about it. A person is EITHER innocent OR guilty of an offence. The two conditions are mutually exclusive. A person logically *cannot* be innocent of a crime, and subsequently be proved to be guilty, but they can be *presumed* to be innocent, and subsequently be found to have been guilty.

So please - just stop leaving out that "presumed". You know it makes sense.

And........ relax.

_________________
I'm a nasty, violent lefty. You cunt.

No, that's not what I said. I was picking up on Silkyman's comment about 'date rape' being "so incredibly difficult to prove - either way". Let's exaggerate and say that it's impossible to prove — either way. Now because the burden of proof falls on the accuser, and the defendant benefits from the presumption of innocence, the crime of 'date rape' is effectively abolished.

When the odds are so heavily stacked against the accuser, there's no point in reporting the crime. This is what many rape victims already face.

There's evidence that granting anonymity to defendants would tip the balance even further in their favour. While it's awful that innocent men occasionally get accused of rape, it's worse that the vast, vast majority of men who are guilty of rape do not have to answer for their crime. The legal framework of "(presumed) innocent until proven guilty" is one of the weapons at their disposal; the non-presumption of the victim's innocence is another. The reality is that, in your-word-versus-my-word cases, for as long as the defendant is presumed to be innocent, the accuser's claim is considered unsubstantiated — ie, open to challenge and doubt.

This is exacerbated by centuries of gender stereotyping and downplaying the seriousness of rape, plus the majority-male makeup of the judicial system and (until very recently) the dismal lack of training of police officers working on rape cases.


The UK already disallows evidence in sexual offence trials where the objective is "impugning the credibility of the complainant as a witness". However, as I understand it there have been repeated problems with the interpretation of this law.

But that has nothing to do with it. Whether the claim is true or not has no baring on whether people believe the claim.

Then I fail to see how you'd solve this problem without removing the presumption of innocence.

As a liberal I'd rather see 10 guilty men walk free than one innocent man be put away.

_________________
"Even when you're a super-computer with an IQ of 2000 it's brown trousers time."

Reclaiming "methinks" for the nation

Latest blog post - 2011 - a review (updated 07/10)

That's not what this is about, though. This is about offering special provisions to men charged with rape, in relation to other crimes.

The 2010 Stern report, which opposed restoring anonymity for men charged with rape, acknowledged that the legal system — and the presumption of innocence — make it difficult even to prosecute the vast majority of rape cases. But in rejecting law reform, Stern explained that the main obstacle for rape victims was that:
Changing these attitudes — some of them highlighted by Andy in his earlier post — has to be the priority. Among the most pernicious is the belief that false accusations are frequent; that women 'cry rape'. This ties in with a whole lot of stereotypes about young women (especially non-PLUs) as self-centred, cynical slags who play the system for a rape conviction, a pregnancy, a council house. Needless to say, the Mail, whose rape stories almost always focus on the victim, and which runs innumerable pieces about women who 'cry rape', bears a large part of the responsibility for these.

So what are the figures comparing "cry rape" cases to those where there actually has been a rape?

Personally I'm of the opinion where such damage can be done to someones reputation merely through the insinuation then anonymity should be granted to protect those presumed innocent. This doesn't just apply to rape.

Maybe we should ask Chris Jefferies what he thinks? Or John Leslie? Or Neil Hamilton?

_________________
"Even when you're a super-computer with an IQ of 2000 it's brown trousers time."

Reclaiming "methinks" for the nation

Latest blog post - 2011 - a review (updated 07/10)

I'm don't think that matters.


The problem there seems to be with the media, not with the law.

If there is a failing with one part of society then it is the job of the law to uphold the rights of all citizens. The word "all" here being crucial.

As to "not thinking it matters", oh I think it very much does when we're talking about proportions of false to true rape claims. Indeed it's the evry bedrock of the discussion.

_________________
"Even when you're a super-computer with an IQ of 2000 it's brown trousers time."

Reclaiming "methinks" for the nation

Latest blog post - 2011 - a review (updated 07/10)

Could a woman false cry rape for alterior motive?

For sure.

Could a rapist male cry that a woman actually consented to sex when she didn't?

For sure.

Don't people, in their dishonesty, suck?

Using the current system where there is reasonable doubt, then it is assumed, the accused will be acquitted, of criminal charges at least.

_________________
You may say I'm a dreamer.... but I'm not the only one....

But I'm with lord kobel. It doesn't matter.

So in the matter of whether we are right to think there are a lot of fake cries of rape, the actual figures don't matter?

Logic akin to "the number of votes cast for each party in a General Election aren't really relevant to deciding the result".

_________________
"Even when you're a super-computer with an IQ of 2000 it's brown trousers time."

Reclaiming "methinks" for the nation

Latest blog post - 2011 - a review (updated 07/10)