Unconscious bias - is it time to rethink how we address VAWG?
***Trigger warning***
Between 2020 and 2021, the number of allegations of rape recorded nationally was 55,653.
While this figure is shocking high, of those allegations, only 3% (around 1700 cases) resulted in a charging decision and only 2% of the 1700 cases results in a successful conviction.
This means over 50,000 potential victims (from 2020-2021) face a lifetime of trauma without their suspected perpetrator ever having to enter a court room.
On the other hand, the number of suspected 'false allegations' also floats around the 3% mark in terms of total complaints for this one offence.
So, is it time we adopt a radical approach regarding criminal justice and seek close the gap between the number of allegations made and successful prosecutions?
List of changes which would positively impact the number of successful prosecutions:
(In fact the same model could be adopted in terms of all allegations of domestic abuse)
1. Remove the possibility of bail being granted until the resolution of a case (Striking a balance between detaining alleged suspects while ensuing maximum safety for victims).
2. Amend the sentencing guidelines for the offence of rape in order to permit only one sentence permitted by law, namely a whole life order (the concept of 'severity' should have no impact on sentence as the offence is serious by mere nature).
3. Introduce a mandatory requirement that the alleged suspects digital devices, obtained in the course of any investigation, will be wiped (regardless of outcome).
4. Introduce mandatory 5 year minimum injunction against the suspect of any alleged offending in order to provide a mechanism for victims if an investigation warrants an NFA outcome, thus providing gateway for convictions of 'breach' of the injunction if the suspect attempts or makes contact with the victim.
5. Introduce a mandatory requirement that if an allegation is made and an NFA outcome is reached, the police will have a duty to ensure that any future/past partners are made aware of the details of the allegation in cases where the suspect has children.
6. If an investigations warrants a NFA outcome, suspects for a period of 3 years would have to register any digital devices they use and be prevented for deleting any social media messages/internet history - the devices would be checked once per 6 months using AI algorithms in order to check for certain 'key phrases' and if the suspect has discussed the allegations with anyone else, thus providing a permissible pathway to potential reopening a NFA case if the suspects narrative on the allegation changes over time.
7. Introduce a 'off last resort' mechanism for victims by setting up a fund so that victims could pursue private prosecutions against the alleged suspect, regardless of if the CPS reach a NFA outcome.
8. Introduce the mandatory requirement for all allegations of rape to undergo the 'balance of probability' civil proceedings test. Upon a NFA outcome being reached, the allegations of the victim will be tried in civil court in order to ensure that any findings which could be made in terms of the alleged offending are made. While this is not a criminal conviction, findings made in the civil context could go towards ensuing some level of closure.
9. Introduce the mandatory requirement for a suspects GP, hospital, mental health and other records to be disclosed during the course of an investigation. This would help support those in reaching charging decisions in terms of identifying the level of culpability based off past disclosures made to professionals - i.e I've had urges to do x for a while.
10. Amend guidance within civil proceedings for the rape findings and set a requirement for judges, among a finding being made, to ensure that any finding is also combined with a custodial penalty and fine (which should be increased from the maximum of 6 months for civil proceedings to 24 months and an unlimited fine). While civil proceedings are different to criminal, a finding must result in enhanced safeguarding measures which protect the victim.
Between 2020 and 2021, the number of allegations of rape recorded nationally was 55,653.
While this figure is shocking high, of those allegations, only 3% (around 1700 cases) resulted in a charging decision and only 2% of the 1700 cases results in a successful conviction.
This means over 50,000 potential victims (from 2020-2021) face a lifetime of trauma without their suspected perpetrator ever having to enter a court room.
On the other hand, the number of suspected 'false allegations' also floats around the 3% mark in terms of total complaints for this one offence.
So, is it time we adopt a radical approach regarding criminal justice and seek close the gap between the number of allegations made and successful prosecutions?
List of changes which would positively impact the number of successful prosecutions:
(In fact the same model could be adopted in terms of all allegations of domestic abuse)
1. Remove the possibility of bail being granted until the resolution of a case (Striking a balance between detaining alleged suspects while ensuing maximum safety for victims).
2. Amend the sentencing guidelines for the offence of rape in order to permit only one sentence permitted by law, namely a whole life order (the concept of 'severity' should have no impact on sentence as the offence is serious by mere nature).
3. Introduce a mandatory requirement that the alleged suspects digital devices, obtained in the course of any investigation, will be wiped (regardless of outcome).
4. Introduce mandatory 5 year minimum injunction against the suspect of any alleged offending in order to provide a mechanism for victims if an investigation warrants an NFA outcome, thus providing gateway for convictions of 'breach' of the injunction if the suspect attempts or makes contact with the victim.
5. Introduce a mandatory requirement that if an allegation is made and an NFA outcome is reached, the police will have a duty to ensure that any future/past partners are made aware of the details of the allegation in cases where the suspect has children.
6. If an investigations warrants a NFA outcome, suspects for a period of 3 years would have to register any digital devices they use and be prevented for deleting any social media messages/internet history - the devices would be checked once per 6 months using AI algorithms in order to check for certain 'key phrases' and if the suspect has discussed the allegations with anyone else, thus providing a permissible pathway to potential reopening a NFA case if the suspects narrative on the allegation changes over time.
7. Introduce a 'off last resort' mechanism for victims by setting up a fund so that victims could pursue private prosecutions against the alleged suspect, regardless of if the CPS reach a NFA outcome.
8. Introduce the mandatory requirement for all allegations of rape to undergo the 'balance of probability' civil proceedings test. Upon a NFA outcome being reached, the allegations of the victim will be tried in civil court in order to ensure that any findings which could be made in terms of the alleged offending are made. While this is not a criminal conviction, findings made in the civil context could go towards ensuing some level of closure.
9. Introduce the mandatory requirement for a suspects GP, hospital, mental health and other records to be disclosed during the course of an investigation. This would help support those in reaching charging decisions in terms of identifying the level of culpability based off past disclosures made to professionals - i.e I've had urges to do x for a while.
10. Amend guidance within civil proceedings for the rape findings and set a requirement for judges, among a finding being made, to ensure that any finding is also combined with a custodial penalty and fine (which should be increased from the maximum of 6 months for civil proceedings to 24 months and an unlimited fine). While civil proceedings are different to criminal, a finding must result in enhanced safeguarding measures which protect the victim.
I would appreciate if others engaged in order to actively identity methods which help the aim of closing the gap and breaking the cycle 🙂
Two things.
Your statistics are factually and laughably wrong. In your opening lines you make claims so bold and so ridiculous as to not stand up to the most passing of scrutiny.
Your suggestions are radical, insane and beyond any concept of natural justice, and would survive not a single minute in any court of Human Rights, be that the UK Supreme Court or the ECHR.
Your statistics are factually and laughably wrong. In your opening lines you make claims so bold and so ridiculous as to not stand up to the most passing of scrutiny.
Your suggestions are radical, insane and beyond any concept of natural justice, and would survive not a single minute in any court of Human Rights, be that the UK Supreme Court or the ECHR.
Original post by Trinculo
Two things.
Your statistics are factually and laughably wrong. In your opening lines you make claims so bold and so ridiculous as to not stand up to the most passing of scrutiny.
Your suggestions are radical, insane and beyond any concept of natural justice, and would survive not a single minute in any court of Human Rights, be that the UK Supreme Court or the ECHR.
Your statistics are factually and laughably wrong. In your opening lines you make claims so bold and so ridiculous as to not stand up to the most passing of scrutiny.
Your suggestions are radical, insane and beyond any concept of natural justice, and would survive not a single minute in any court of Human Rights, be that the UK Supreme Court or the ECHR.
Putting aside the objections of the UK Supreme Court or the ECHR for one moment as any issues could be circumvented with ease, if the political well power existed.
I fail to see how any of the policies are 'beyond any concept of natural justice' or indeed radical.
I would draw your attention to the Labour Party's plan for detailing with similar allegations if they so happen to come to power, namely: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/labour-yvette-cooper-police-liverpool-wales-b2425770.html
(edited 2 months ago)
Take your initial numbers.
3% charging = roughly 1700 cases.
2% of 1700 cases with a conviction.
This would equate to roughly 34 rape convictions in all England & Wales in a year. That is obviously absurd.
The conviction rate for all rape cases brought is roughly 75%.
Further, you're implying that 3% is a low charging rate - it's quite a high charging rate relative to some other offences. I would imagine the charging rate for theft of mobile phone is somewhere in the low tenth of one percent range.
300 years ago, the notable jurist William Blackstone said "Rape is a crime that is difficult to prosecute and even more difficult to defend against". That was true in the 18th century, and is just as true now. One of the absolute truths of rape is that in the vast majority of cases, there is no prospect of a conviction due to the nature of the offence.
3% charging = roughly 1700 cases.
2% of 1700 cases with a conviction.
This would equate to roughly 34 rape convictions in all England & Wales in a year. That is obviously absurd.
The conviction rate for all rape cases brought is roughly 75%.
Further, you're implying that 3% is a low charging rate - it's quite a high charging rate relative to some other offences. I would imagine the charging rate for theft of mobile phone is somewhere in the low tenth of one percent range.
300 years ago, the notable jurist William Blackstone said "Rape is a crime that is difficult to prosecute and even more difficult to defend against". That was true in the 18th century, and is just as true now. One of the absolute truths of rape is that in the vast majority of cases, there is no prospect of a conviction due to the nature of the offence.
Original post by Trinculo
Take your initial numbers.
3% charging = roughly 1700 cases.
2% of 1700 cases with a conviction.
This would equate to roughly 34 rape convictions in all England & Wales in a year. That is obviously absurd.
The conviction rate for all rape cases brought is roughly 75%.
Further, you're implying that 3% is a low charging rate - it's quite a high charging rate relative to some other offences. I would imagine the charging rate for theft of mobile phone is somewhere in the low tenth of one percent range.
300 years ago, the notable jurist William Blackstone said "Rape is a crime that is difficult to prosecute and even more difficult to defend against". That was true in the 18th century, and is just as true now. One of the absolute truths of rape is that in the vast majority of cases, there is no prospect of a conviction due to the nature of the offence.
3% charging = roughly 1700 cases.
2% of 1700 cases with a conviction.
This would equate to roughly 34 rape convictions in all England & Wales in a year. That is obviously absurd.
The conviction rate for all rape cases brought is roughly 75%.
Further, you're implying that 3% is a low charging rate - it's quite a high charging rate relative to some other offences. I would imagine the charging rate for theft of mobile phone is somewhere in the low tenth of one percent range.
300 years ago, the notable jurist William Blackstone said "Rape is a crime that is difficult to prosecute and even more difficult to defend against". That was true in the 18th century, and is just as true now. One of the absolute truths of rape is that in the vast majority of cases, there is no prospect of a conviction due to the nature of the offence.
Blackstone's discussions on rape itself in his commentaries focused on the legal definitions, evidentiary standards, and punishments related to the crime as understood in the 18th century.
The policies I proposed concentrate on securing a higher conviction rate and providing alternative method of disposal via civil 'findings' which could provide some form of resolution.
For example, subjecting allegations of rape to mandatory civil proceedings, which could resulting in findings of fact, is not a radical change but instead the expansion of the scope of the existing system.
Original post by EmilyJade24
Putting aside the objections of the UK Supreme Court or the ECHR for one moment as any issues could be circumvented with ease, if the political well power existed.
I fail to see how any of the policies are 'beyond any concept of natural justice' or indeed radical.
I would draw your attention to the Labour Party's plan for detailing with similar allegations if they so happen to come to power, namely: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/labour-yvette-cooper-police-liverpool-wales-b2425770.html
I fail to see how any of the policies are 'beyond any concept of natural justice' or indeed radical.
I would draw your attention to the Labour Party's plan for detailing with similar allegations if they so happen to come to power, namely: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/labour-yvette-cooper-police-liverpool-wales-b2425770.html
You are asking that persons suspected (not accused) of an offence are stripped of any presumption of innocence. That is an affront to justice.
You are asking that persons merely suspected of an offence are remanded. This effectively means imprisonment without trial for what could possibly be years - purely for an allegation.
You are asking for the most draconian of measures be taken against persons who have been given an NFA outcome, including electronic monitoring, funded private prosecutions and automatic five year injunctions. People currently do not receive these kinds of conditions if found actually guilty of most offences.
This is absolute crazy town. Let me give you a simple scenario:
A alleges that she has been raped at a small private party. A does not know the identity of suspect, but there is a male, B who was at the party and generally fits the description and was seen leaving the party in a hurry. Police arrest B and interview him. As the investigation progresses, police are satisfied that B was not the suspect. This may be through forensic evidence or elimination by means of alibi evidence. B is no longer a named suspect and the casefile against him is closed as NFA. Under your system, B would be electronically monitored and have an automatic injunction against him despite having no connection to the offence. Additionally, in the time taken to reach these conclusions (which could be months or even years) B should have been remanded in prison.
(edited 2 months ago)
Original post by EmilyJade24
Blackstone's discussions on rape itself in his commentaries focused on the legal definitions, evidentiary standards, and punishments related to the crime as understood in the 18th century.
The policies I proposed concentrate on securing a higher conviction rate and providing alternative method of disposal via civil 'findings' which could provide some form of resolution.
For example, subjecting allegations of rape to mandatory civil proceedings, which could resulting in findings of fact, is not a radical change but instead the expansion of the scope of the existing system.
The policies I proposed concentrate on securing a higher conviction rate and providing alternative method of disposal via civil 'findings' which could provide some form of resolution.
For example, subjecting allegations of rape to mandatory civil proceedings, which could resulting in findings of fact, is not a radical change but instead the expansion of the scope of the existing system.
You haven't yet addressed the fact that you started this discussion using statistics that were so false as to be laughable.
Original post by EmilyJade24
***Trigger warning***
Between 2020 and 2021, the number of allegations of rape recorded nationally was 55,653.
While this figure is shocking high, of those allegations, only 3% (around 1700 cases) resulted in a charging decision and only 2% of the 1700 cases results in a successful conviction.
This means over 50,000 potential victims (from 2020-2021) face a lifetime of trauma without their suspected perpetrator ever having to enter a court room.
On the other hand, the number of suspected 'false allegations' also floats around the 3% mark in terms of total complaints for this one offence.
So, is it time we adopt a radical approach regarding criminal justice and seek close the gap between the number of allegations made and successful prosecutions?
List of changes which would positively impact the number of successful prosecutions:
(In fact the same model could be adopted in terms of all allegations of domestic abuse)
1. Remove the possibility of bail being granted until the resolution of a case (Striking a balance between detaining alleged suspects while ensuing maximum safety for victims).
2. Amend the sentencing guidelines for the offence of rape in order to permit only one sentence permitted by law, namely a whole life order (the concept of 'severity' should have no impact on sentence as the offence is serious by mere nature).
3. Introduce a mandatory requirement that the alleged suspects digital devices, obtained in the course of any investigation, will be wiped (regardless of outcome).
4. Introduce mandatory 5 year minimum injunction against the suspect of any alleged offending in order to provide a mechanism for victims if an investigation warrants an NFA outcome, thus providing gateway for convictions of 'breach' of the injunction if the suspect attempts or makes contact with the victim.
5. Introduce a mandatory requirement that if an allegation is made and an NFA outcome is reached, the police will have a duty to ensure that any future/past partners are made aware of the details of the allegation in cases where the suspect has children.
6. If an investigations warrants a NFA outcome, suspects for a period of 3 years would have to register any digital devices they use and be prevented for deleting any social media messages/internet history - the devices would be checked once per 6 months using AI algorithms in order to check for certain 'key phrases' and if the suspect has discussed the allegations with anyone else, thus providing a permissible pathway to potential reopening a NFA case if the suspects narrative on the allegation changes over time.
7. Introduce a 'off last resort' mechanism for victims by setting up a fund so that victims could pursue private prosecutions against the alleged suspect, regardless of if the CPS reach a NFA outcome.
8. Introduce the mandatory requirement for all allegations of rape to undergo the 'balance of probability' civil proceedings test. Upon a NFA outcome being reached, the allegations of the victim will be tried in civil court in order to ensure that any findings which could be made in terms of the alleged offending are made. While this is not a criminal conviction, findings made in the civil context could go towards ensuing some level of closure.
9. Introduce the mandatory requirement for a suspects GP, hospital, mental health and other records to be disclosed during the course of an investigation. This would help support those in reaching charging decisions in terms of identifying the level of culpability based off past disclosures made to professionals - i.e I've had urges to do x for a while.
10. Amend guidance within civil proceedings for the rape findings and set a requirement for judges, among a finding being made, to ensure that any finding is also combined with a custodial penalty and fine (which should be increased from the maximum of 6 months for civil proceedings to 24 months and an unlimited fine). While civil proceedings are different to criminal, a finding must result in enhanced safeguarding measures which protect the victim.
Between 2020 and 2021, the number of allegations of rape recorded nationally was 55,653.
While this figure is shocking high, of those allegations, only 3% (around 1700 cases) resulted in a charging decision and only 2% of the 1700 cases results in a successful conviction.
This means over 50,000 potential victims (from 2020-2021) face a lifetime of trauma without their suspected perpetrator ever having to enter a court room.
On the other hand, the number of suspected 'false allegations' also floats around the 3% mark in terms of total complaints for this one offence.
So, is it time we adopt a radical approach regarding criminal justice and seek close the gap between the number of allegations made and successful prosecutions?
List of changes which would positively impact the number of successful prosecutions:
(In fact the same model could be adopted in terms of all allegations of domestic abuse)
1. Remove the possibility of bail being granted until the resolution of a case (Striking a balance between detaining alleged suspects while ensuing maximum safety for victims).
2. Amend the sentencing guidelines for the offence of rape in order to permit only one sentence permitted by law, namely a whole life order (the concept of 'severity' should have no impact on sentence as the offence is serious by mere nature).
3. Introduce a mandatory requirement that the alleged suspects digital devices, obtained in the course of any investigation, will be wiped (regardless of outcome).
4. Introduce mandatory 5 year minimum injunction against the suspect of any alleged offending in order to provide a mechanism for victims if an investigation warrants an NFA outcome, thus providing gateway for convictions of 'breach' of the injunction if the suspect attempts or makes contact with the victim.
5. Introduce a mandatory requirement that if an allegation is made and an NFA outcome is reached, the police will have a duty to ensure that any future/past partners are made aware of the details of the allegation in cases where the suspect has children.
6. If an investigations warrants a NFA outcome, suspects for a period of 3 years would have to register any digital devices they use and be prevented for deleting any social media messages/internet history - the devices would be checked once per 6 months using AI algorithms in order to check for certain 'key phrases' and if the suspect has discussed the allegations with anyone else, thus providing a permissible pathway to potential reopening a NFA case if the suspects narrative on the allegation changes over time.
7. Introduce a 'off last resort' mechanism for victims by setting up a fund so that victims could pursue private prosecutions against the alleged suspect, regardless of if the CPS reach a NFA outcome.
8. Introduce the mandatory requirement for all allegations of rape to undergo the 'balance of probability' civil proceedings test. Upon a NFA outcome being reached, the allegations of the victim will be tried in civil court in order to ensure that any findings which could be made in terms of the alleged offending are made. While this is not a criminal conviction, findings made in the civil context could go towards ensuing some level of closure.
9. Introduce the mandatory requirement for a suspects GP, hospital, mental health and other records to be disclosed during the course of an investigation. This would help support those in reaching charging decisions in terms of identifying the level of culpability based off past disclosures made to professionals - i.e I've had urges to do x for a while.
10. Amend guidance within civil proceedings for the rape findings and set a requirement for judges, among a finding being made, to ensure that any finding is also combined with a custodial penalty and fine (which should be increased from the maximum of 6 months for civil proceedings to 24 months and an unlimited fine). While civil proceedings are different to criminal, a finding must result in enhanced safeguarding measures which protect the victim.
1. This treats the alleged attacker as presumed guilty. Presumption of innocence is a cornerstone of many contemporary legal systems including the UK, and detaining indefinitely any alleged attacker makes rape accusations easy to weaponise. Especially given also how sex offenders (or in this case, presumed sex offenders) are treated in prison, this could lead to material harm of the alleged attacker when they may in fact be innocent. Note that this goes for whatever their gender is or whatever the gender of their accuser (since unlike your framing suggests, rape against men, cis and trans, does happen).
2. Imposing a single sentence would be a gross overreach of legislative power over the judiciary in this case I think. Removing any ability for the judiciary to decide the sentencing (and reducing the judge in these cases to a mere figurehead) would be unworkable. This would, I think, have significant constitutional implications. Also this fails to account for mitigating factors such as serious mental illness.
3. Even alleged suspects devices need to be wiped? So you think that anyone accused, regardless of whether they are innocent or guilty, needs to have all of their data deleted even if for an innocent there was nothing to be removed that was untoward? Again, presumption of guilt is an issue, and so is the harm to innocent parties. Not to mention the huge risk of weaponisation of the law even in non-domestic contexts e.g. corporate espionage situations where someone could accuse the CEO of a major company and require all their devices be wiped causing major financial harm to the company and the economy.
4. Again, presumption of guilt.
5. Again.
6. Again.
7. Again, and in fact further incentivising weaponsiation of this legal framework because not only can they ruin the life of anyone they choose, they are then free to sue them personally at whim.
8. The standard of evidence required is because of the severity of the current sentencing and even just the mere fact of being found guilt of sexual assault. Reducing this is absurd.
9. This is a huge confidentality issue and also makes it harder for health professionals, especially mental health professionals, to do their jobs as their clients may be less likely to disclose any intrusive thoughts for fear of it being weaponised against them legally later. Ironically this might make them then less likely to seek help with intrusive thoughts and actually increase the risk of them committing a sexual offence.
10. This is the only suggestion that may be considered remotely workable but not in the context of a civil court and lowered standard of evidence.
I'm sorry but this would be enormously damaging if ever implemented, incredibly draconian and a huge violation of civil rights, data rights, medical confidentiality and I suspect pose serious constitutional issues too.
I don't use the term "demented" often but this proposal really is.
Also your legislation wouldn't limit it's effects to the "false positives" of 3% as stated, but would affect all stated and include those who were innocent but not charged - a number you did not include. So the number of innocents affected would be significantly higher. Regardless of which the incredible severity of these suggestions would lead to even just those "false positives" of 3% would lead to some 2000 people a year having their lives immediately and permanently destroyed. That is not acceptable for a fair and just legal system to build into itself a mechanism to ensure that happens. That's not reasonable in any context.
(edited 2 months ago)
The fact that these policy suggestions are coming from a political think tank, (which may or may not have been banned from TSR previously), is absolutely mind boggling.
Original post by Admit-One
The fact that these policy suggestions are coming from a political think tank, (which may or may not have been banned from TSR previously), is absolutely mind boggling.
I am not associated with any political or policy think tank and I do not have a role in advising anyone in government on matters of criminal justice.
Original post by EmilyJade24
I am not associated with any political or policy think tank and I do not have a role in advising anyone in government on matters of criminal justice.
The only reassuring part of this thread.
Original post by Trinculo
You are asking that persons suspected (not accused) of an offence are stripped of any presumption of innocence. That is an affront to justice.
You are asking that persons merely suspected of an offence are remanded. This effectively means imprisonment without trial for what could possibly be years - purely for an allegation.
You are asking for the most draconian of measures be taken against persons who have been given an NFA outcome, including electronic monitoring, funded private prosecutions and automatic five year injunctions. People currently do not receive these kinds of conditions if found actually guilty of most offences.
This is absolute crazy town. Let me give you a simple scenario:
A alleges that she has been raped at a small private party. A does not know the identity of suspect, but there is a male, B who was at the party and generally fits the description and was seen leaving the party in a hurry. Police arrest B and interview him. As the investigation progresses, police are satisfied that B was not the suspect. This may be through forensic evidence or elimination by means of alibi evidence. B is no longer a named suspect and the casefile against him is closed as NFA. Under your system, B would be electronically monitored and have an automatic injunction against him despite having no connection to the offence. Additionally, in the time taken to reach these conclusions (which could be months or even years) B should have been remanded in prison.
You are asking that persons merely suspected of an offence are remanded. This effectively means imprisonment without trial for what could possibly be years - purely for an allegation.
You are asking for the most draconian of measures be taken against persons who have been given an NFA outcome, including electronic monitoring, funded private prosecutions and automatic five year injunctions. People currently do not receive these kinds of conditions if found actually guilty of most offences.
This is absolute crazy town. Let me give you a simple scenario:
A alleges that she has been raped at a small private party. A does not know the identity of suspect, but there is a male, B who was at the party and generally fits the description and was seen leaving the party in a hurry. Police arrest B and interview him. As the investigation progresses, police are satisfied that B was not the suspect. This may be through forensic evidence or elimination by means of alibi evidence. B is no longer a named suspect and the casefile against him is closed as NFA. Under your system, B would be electronically monitored and have an automatic injunction against him despite having no connection to the offence. Additionally, in the time taken to reach these conclusions (which could be months or even years) B should have been remanded in prison.
To address your points retrospectively:
If a family court judge at the first instance decided to grant an application for an interim non-molestation order until the conclusion of proceedings for reasons of 'safeguarding', the same argument in terms of infringing upon the rights of the respondent, with the overhanging threat of criminal sanction, could also be made.
My argument in terms of ‘remanding’ a person suspected of a serious sexual offence for reasons of proactive safeguarding until the process of elimination has taken place or if evidential difficulties prevent further action follows the spirit of preventing the risk of harm occurring at the first instance.
While I accept that allocation for trial may take an extended period of time, up to years in some cases, the scenario you describe in terms of proven alibi or elimination by forensics is not the same as NFA for the reason of evidential difficulties.
Therefore, it is highly unlikely that an individual would chose to pursue a private prosecution against an individual where the evidence shows they have no involvement. If they wished to do so, it is clear, in based on scenario you described (providing its scope is limited directly to what you described), that the outcome would be 'not guilty'.
If a suspect has been NFA’d for reasons of evidential difficulties, the possibility of their involvement in an alleged offence cannot be discounted.
Therefore, having to surrender your device for a short period of time for forensic examination which could, potentially, result in an NFA becoming a positive charging decision, is a balanced compromise. The scenario you describe relates to an individual where the evidence shows no involvement and not the bulk of NFA cases which again is evidential difficulties where the suspect is either identified or not.
Applying a mandatory injunction against a person who has been NFA’d for reasons of evidential difficulty could easily be argued as a proactive safeguarding measure in a similar respect to how civil courts apply interim injunctions until the conclusion of proceedings.
(edited 2 months ago)
Original post by artful_lounger
1. This treats the alleged attacker as presumed guilty. Presumption of innocence is a cornerstone of many contemporary legal systems including the UK, and detaining indefinitely any alleged attacker makes rape accusations easy to weaponise. Especially given also how sex offenders (or in this case, presumed sex offenders) are treated in prison, this could lead to material harm of the alleged attacker when they may in fact be innocent. Note that this goes for whatever their gender is or whatever the gender of their accuser (since unlike your framing suggests, rape against men, cis and trans, does happen).
2. Imposing a single sentence would be a gross overreach of legislative power over the judiciary in this case I think. Removing any ability for the judiciary to decide the sentencing (and reducing the judge in these cases to a mere figurehead) would be unworkable. This would, I think, have significant constitutional implications. Also this fails to account for mitigating factors such as serious mental illness.
3. Even alleged suspects devices need to be wiped? So you think that anyone accused, regardless of whether they are innocent or guilty, needs to have all of their data deleted even if for an innocent there was nothing to be removed that was untoward? Again, presumption of guilt is an issue, and so is the harm to innocent parties. Not to mention the huge risk of weaponisation of the law even in non-domestic contexts e.g. corporate espionage situations where someone could accuse the CEO of a major company and require all their devices be wiped causing major financial harm to the company and the economy.
4. Again, presumption of guilt.
5. Again.
6. Again.
7. Again, and in fact further incentivising weaponsiation of this legal framework because not only can they ruin the life of anyone they choose, they are then free to sue them personally at whim.
8. The standard of evidence required is because of the severity of the current sentencing and even just the mere fact of being found guilt of sexual assault. Reducing this is absurd.
9. This is a huge confidentality issue and also makes it harder for health professionals, especially mental health professionals, to do their jobs as their clients may be less likely to disclose any intrusive thoughts for fear of it being weaponised against them legally later. Ironically this might make them then less likely to seek help with intrusive thoughts and actually increase the risk of them committing a sexual offence.
10. This is the only suggestion that may be considered remotely workable but not in the context of a civil court and lowered standard of evidence.
I'm sorry but this would be enormously damaging if ever implemented, incredibly draconian and a huge violation of civil rights, data rights, medical confidentiality and I suspect pose serious constitutional issues too.
I don't use the term "demented" often but this proposal really is.
Also your legislation wouldn't limit it's effects to the "false positives" of 3% as stated, but would affect all stated and include those who were innocent but not charged - a number you did not include. So the number of innocents affected would be significantly higher. Regardless of which the incredible severity of these suggestions would lead to even just those "false positives" of 3% would lead to some 2000 people a year having their lives immediately and permanently destroyed. That is not acceptable for a fair and just legal system to build into itself a mechanism to ensure that happens. That's not reasonable in any context.
2. Imposing a single sentence would be a gross overreach of legislative power over the judiciary in this case I think. Removing any ability for the judiciary to decide the sentencing (and reducing the judge in these cases to a mere figurehead) would be unworkable. This would, I think, have significant constitutional implications. Also this fails to account for mitigating factors such as serious mental illness.
3. Even alleged suspects devices need to be wiped? So you think that anyone accused, regardless of whether they are innocent or guilty, needs to have all of their data deleted even if for an innocent there was nothing to be removed that was untoward? Again, presumption of guilt is an issue, and so is the harm to innocent parties. Not to mention the huge risk of weaponisation of the law even in non-domestic contexts e.g. corporate espionage situations where someone could accuse the CEO of a major company and require all their devices be wiped causing major financial harm to the company and the economy.
4. Again, presumption of guilt.
5. Again.
6. Again.
7. Again, and in fact further incentivising weaponsiation of this legal framework because not only can they ruin the life of anyone they choose, they are then free to sue them personally at whim.
8. The standard of evidence required is because of the severity of the current sentencing and even just the mere fact of being found guilt of sexual assault. Reducing this is absurd.
9. This is a huge confidentality issue and also makes it harder for health professionals, especially mental health professionals, to do their jobs as their clients may be less likely to disclose any intrusive thoughts for fear of it being weaponised against them legally later. Ironically this might make them then less likely to seek help with intrusive thoughts and actually increase the risk of them committing a sexual offence.
10. This is the only suggestion that may be considered remotely workable but not in the context of a civil court and lowered standard of evidence.
I'm sorry but this would be enormously damaging if ever implemented, incredibly draconian and a huge violation of civil rights, data rights, medical confidentiality and I suspect pose serious constitutional issues too.
I don't use the term "demented" often but this proposal really is.
Also your legislation wouldn't limit it's effects to the "false positives" of 3% as stated, but would affect all stated and include those who were innocent but not charged - a number you did not include. So the number of innocents affected would be significantly higher. Regardless of which the incredible severity of these suggestions would lead to even just those "false positives" of 3% would lead to some 2000 people a year having their lives immediately and permanently destroyed. That is not acceptable for a fair and just legal system to build into itself a mechanism to ensure that happens. That's not reasonable in any context.
I would refer you to the post I just made which I believe addresses most of the concerns you highlighted.
Original post by artful_lounger
1. This treats the alleged attacker as presumed guilty. Presumption of innocence is a cornerstone of many contemporary legal systems including the UK, and detaining indefinitely any alleged attacker makes rape accusations easy to weaponise. Especially given also how sex offenders (or in this case, presumed sex offenders) are treated in prison, this could lead to material harm of the alleged attacker when they may in fact be innocent. Note that this goes for whatever their gender is or whatever the gender of their accuser (since unlike your framing suggests, rape against men, cis and trans, does happen).
2. Imposing a single sentence would be a gross overreach of legislative power over the judiciary in this case I think. Removing any ability for the judiciary to decide the sentencing (and reducing the judge in these cases to a mere figurehead) would be unworkable. This would, I think, have significant constitutional implications. Also this fails to account for mitigating factors such as serious mental illness.
3. Even alleged suspects devices need to be wiped? So you think that anyone accused, regardless of whether they are innocent or guilty, needs to have all of their data deleted even if for an innocent there was nothing to be removed that was untoward? Again, presumption of guilt is an issue, and so is the harm to innocent parties. Not to mention the huge risk of weaponisation of the law even in non-domestic contexts e.g. corporate espionage situations where someone could accuse the CEO of a major company and require all their devices be wiped causing major financial harm to the company and the economy.
4. Again, presumption of guilt.
5. Again.
6. Again.
7. Again, and in fact further incentivising weaponsiation of this legal framework because not only can they ruin the life of anyone they choose, they are then free to sue them personally at whim.
8. The standard of evidence required is because of the severity of the current sentencing and even just the mere fact of being found guilt of sexual assault. Reducing this is absurd.
9. This is a huge confidentality issue and also makes it harder for health professionals, especially mental health professionals, to do their jobs as their clients may be less likely to disclose any intrusive thoughts for fear of it being weaponised against them legally later. Ironically this might make them then less likely to seek help with intrusive thoughts and actually increase the risk of them committing a sexual offence.
10. This is the only suggestion that may be considered remotely workable but not in the context of a civil court and lowered standard of evidence.
I'm sorry but this would be enormously damaging if ever implemented, incredibly draconian and a huge violation of civil rights, data rights, medical confidentiality and I suspect pose serious constitutional issues too.
I don't use the term "demented" often but this proposal really is.
Also your legislation wouldn't limit it's effects to the "false positives" of 3% as stated, but would affect all stated and include those who were innocent but not charged - a number you did not include. So the number of innocents affected would be significantly higher. Regardless of which the incredible severity of these suggestions would lead to even just those "false positives" of 3% would lead to some 2000 people a year having their lives immediately and permanently destroyed. That is not acceptable for a fair and just legal system to build into itself a mechanism to ensure that happens. That's not reasonable in any context.
2. Imposing a single sentence would be a gross overreach of legislative power over the judiciary in this case I think. Removing any ability for the judiciary to decide the sentencing (and reducing the judge in these cases to a mere figurehead) would be unworkable. This would, I think, have significant constitutional implications. Also this fails to account for mitigating factors such as serious mental illness.
3. Even alleged suspects devices need to be wiped? So you think that anyone accused, regardless of whether they are innocent or guilty, needs to have all of their data deleted even if for an innocent there was nothing to be removed that was untoward? Again, presumption of guilt is an issue, and so is the harm to innocent parties. Not to mention the huge risk of weaponisation of the law even in non-domestic contexts e.g. corporate espionage situations where someone could accuse the CEO of a major company and require all their devices be wiped causing major financial harm to the company and the economy.
4. Again, presumption of guilt.
5. Again.
6. Again.
7. Again, and in fact further incentivising weaponsiation of this legal framework because not only can they ruin the life of anyone they choose, they are then free to sue them personally at whim.
8. The standard of evidence required is because of the severity of the current sentencing and even just the mere fact of being found guilt of sexual assault. Reducing this is absurd.
9. This is a huge confidentality issue and also makes it harder for health professionals, especially mental health professionals, to do their jobs as their clients may be less likely to disclose any intrusive thoughts for fear of it being weaponised against them legally later. Ironically this might make them then less likely to seek help with intrusive thoughts and actually increase the risk of them committing a sexual offence.
10. This is the only suggestion that may be considered remotely workable but not in the context of a civil court and lowered standard of evidence.
I'm sorry but this would be enormously damaging if ever implemented, incredibly draconian and a huge violation of civil rights, data rights, medical confidentiality and I suspect pose serious constitutional issues too.
I don't use the term "demented" often but this proposal really is.
Also your legislation wouldn't limit it's effects to the "false positives" of 3% as stated, but would affect all stated and include those who were innocent but not charged - a number you did not include. So the number of innocents affected would be significantly higher. Regardless of which the incredible severity of these suggestions would lead to even just those "false positives" of 3% would lead to some 2000 people a year having their lives immediately and permanently destroyed. That is not acceptable for a fair and just legal system to build into itself a mechanism to ensure that happens. That's not reasonable in any context.
There are merits in introducing a singular sentence in order to reduce and deter offending in an area which a notoriously low charge and conviction rate.
In terms of the wiping of a suspects devices, I fail to see how this wouldn't serve as a proactive step in terms of safeguarding the alleged victim in cases where the NFA is due to evidential difficulties. The argument concerning the law being weaponised could be made against any safeguarding measure, whether an injunction or otherwise. An injunction could be weaponised against the person to whom it is made, additionally, it may be completely unnecessary and the application is driven solely by the desire of one party to undermine the other.
Concerning the disclosure of suspect medical records, I agree. Although as of the moment, if information is being disclosed to medical professionals, it is very unlikely that material will be used against the suspect in order to produce a positive charging decisions. While some may slip through the net and refuse disclosure of any 'urges', the additional power and impact of the mechanism could provide, potentially, to many more charging decisions which ordinary would be NFA. In combination with the digital forensics policy, if a suspect is either looking up how to prevent such 'urges' or has disclosed them to a form of professional, it is likely both policies would increase the number of charging decisions.
The issue of false positives is very difficult to measure. the Bulk of NFA decisions are due to evidential difficulties, thus meaning the offending conduct cannot be discounted, therefore, I fail to see how the number of false positives would be increased, in a similar way to how 'proven alibi' or the process of elimination results in any additional false positives.
The issue of the changes causing a constitutional issues is baffling to me though. By the very nature of the UK not having a codified constitution and the fact any piece of legislation can be repealed due to universally accepted principle that parliament cannot bind its successor, it would be entirely possible to produce a 'notwithstanding' piece of legislation which incorporates the changes I wish to see made and thus remains compatible with the existing framework. While it is true there may be challenge, parliament could quite easily bind the decision of the supreme court in terms of legislating to make the legislation legal. The same goes for objections by the ECHR, we are bound by International treaty which can be revoked, regardless of consequence.
(edited 2 months ago)
Going forward, it would it of great benefit if consideration could be given to both sides of the argument regarding my proposals .
While I understand the concerns of those who wish to make clear the point that they believe the policies are draconian and infringe upon civil rights, I would equally appreciate if the same level of analysis was given towards the impact, in predicted real-terms, of the polices for victims of crime.
In terms of all the policies in combination, is it more likely than not that the number of prosecutions for the offence of rape.
I would draw everyones attention to the case of Jane Clough, a woman who was murdered by her ex partner, who was at the time on bail, for the offence of rape. She spoke out with incredibly bravery and yet, the justice system was not on her side.
URL (Jane Clough case): https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/oct/14/man-murdered-ex-girlfriend-jailed-life#:~:text=A%20man%20who%20stabbed%20his,mother%20of%20his%20baby%20daughter.
While the case is shocking, the allegations of rape, for which the suspect was first arrested, remains stayed on the courts records. While he pled guilty to murder, he has avoided a conviction for rape.
This is my guiding force in terms of the radical policies I propose herein.
While you may disagree, I am interested in what those, with experience, assume the real world outcome would be.
Stating that 2-3% of allegations of rape per year are false and this figure may increase does not assess every policy in the totality.
Please try to avoid bias in terms of outcome and concentrate on a holistic approach, both positives and negatives for both victims and suspects 🙂
While I understand the concerns of those who wish to make clear the point that they believe the policies are draconian and infringe upon civil rights, I would equally appreciate if the same level of analysis was given towards the impact, in predicted real-terms, of the polices for victims of crime.
In terms of all the policies in combination, is it more likely than not that the number of prosecutions for the offence of rape.
I would draw everyones attention to the case of Jane Clough, a woman who was murdered by her ex partner, who was at the time on bail, for the offence of rape. She spoke out with incredibly bravery and yet, the justice system was not on her side.
URL (Jane Clough case): https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/oct/14/man-murdered-ex-girlfriend-jailed-life#:~:text=A%20man%20who%20stabbed%20his,mother%20of%20his%20baby%20daughter.
While the case is shocking, the allegations of rape, for which the suspect was first arrested, remains stayed on the courts records. While he pled guilty to murder, he has avoided a conviction for rape.
This is my guiding force in terms of the radical policies I propose herein.
While you may disagree, I am interested in what those, with experience, assume the real world outcome would be.
Stating that 2-3% of allegations of rape per year are false and this figure may increase does not assess every policy in the totality.
Please try to avoid bias in terms of outcome and concentrate on a holistic approach, both positives and negatives for both victims and suspects 🙂
(edited 2 months ago)
@EmilyJade24 You have still not addressed the fact that your starting point for this was a provable untruth.
Look throughout this thread at your use of language and it should be clear why I believe that you have terrible ideas. You clearly believe in draconian levels of dictatorship to enforce your interests. There has never been a time in the history of the world when that has been a good idea.
You state:
This effectively means you reject any notion of human rights - not just European ones, not just British ones, but any arbiter of human rights that stands in your way. It is clear that to you, our common law courts and justice systems are mere inconveniences - I see very little difference between your outlook and that of the dogmatic religious courts of several hundred years ago.
I would suggest that you have a very narrow view of this particular range of offences - namely more serious sexual offences. I would suggest that you believe that in the absence of good evidence, an accusation will suffice. It is a feature of serious sexual offences, that very often there is no good evidence. Very often most of the facts are not in doubt. The questions in the majority of cases are those of state of mind of victim and suspect. Under these circumstances, it is likely that in the majority of cases, there will never be the evidence for a conviction - which is why charging rates appear low despite there being named suspects. What you are suggesting is uniquely usurping the recognised standards of justice and saying "the allegation is sufficient to prove guilt, and in the absence of a a conviction, alternative means of punishment must be found" and you go on to list ways in which this might be achieved, or ways in which potential offending may be prevented.
Consider the large number of historic offences that are brought up - when there will often be no physical evidence at all, and it will often be impossible for a suspect to provide explanations or alibi evidence due to the passage of time, and often you have only the victim's recall to go on. Why would you seek to place preventative safeguarding measures against a person when you have no evidence that the offence was actually committed?
Look throughout this thread at your use of language and it should be clear why I believe that you have terrible ideas. You clearly believe in draconian levels of dictatorship to enforce your interests. There has never been a time in the history of the world when that has been a good idea.
You state:
Putting aside the objections of the UK Supreme Court or the ECHR for one moment as any issues could be circumvented with ease, if the political well power existed.
This effectively means you reject any notion of human rights - not just European ones, not just British ones, but any arbiter of human rights that stands in your way. It is clear that to you, our common law courts and justice systems are mere inconveniences - I see very little difference between your outlook and that of the dogmatic religious courts of several hundred years ago.
I would suggest that you have a very narrow view of this particular range of offences - namely more serious sexual offences. I would suggest that you believe that in the absence of good evidence, an accusation will suffice. It is a feature of serious sexual offences, that very often there is no good evidence. Very often most of the facts are not in doubt. The questions in the majority of cases are those of state of mind of victim and suspect. Under these circumstances, it is likely that in the majority of cases, there will never be the evidence for a conviction - which is why charging rates appear low despite there being named suspects. What you are suggesting is uniquely usurping the recognised standards of justice and saying "the allegation is sufficient to prove guilt, and in the absence of a a conviction, alternative means of punishment must be found" and you go on to list ways in which this might be achieved, or ways in which potential offending may be prevented.
Consider the large number of historic offences that are brought up - when there will often be no physical evidence at all, and it will often be impossible for a suspect to provide explanations or alibi evidence due to the passage of time, and often you have only the victim's recall to go on. Why would you seek to place preventative safeguarding measures against a person when you have no evidence that the offence was actually committed?
@Trinculo
Addressing the criticisms you highlight, it's essential to clarify the intent behind the proposed policies and how they are designed to address systemic issues within the criminal justice system, particularly serious sexual offences.
The starting point is not to dismiss the importance of human rights or the role of judicial systems but to recognise and address the gaps that currently exist in providing justice and support to victims of sexual offences.
Transitioning to a society where we can say that ANY allegations of a sexual nature will firstly ensure that the victim is safeguarded above all else, regardless of the risks involved.
For every allegation made, given that only around 3% of allegations are proven to be false. I would like to see the conviction rate increase from 2-3% to at least 85%. So of the 50,000 or more a year complaints, at least 42,8000 would result in positive convictions, even if the number of false allegations slightly increased. We do not live in a perfect society, therefore our justice system should not be so ‘watertight’ that allegations of any nature, regardless of credibility and/or evidence, results in NFA. We should not let the goal of perfection be the energy of the good.
The statistics highlighted, indicating a significant discrepancy between the number of allegations and successful convictions, underscore a critical challenge in the justice system's ability to effectively address and prosecute serious sexual offences.
This gap not only perpetuates the trauma for victims but also undermines public confidence in the legal system's capacity to protect and seek justice for those affected by such crimes.
The proposed policies aim to strengthen the mechanisms for protecting victims and ensuring a more effective response to allegations of serious sexual offences. In the totality, they are not intended to bypass the fundamental principles of justice or human rights but to enhance the system's ability to address these specific types of crimes more effectively. The policies seek to provide additional safeguards for victims, recognising the unique challenges in prosecuting sexual offences, which often lack physical evidence and rely heavily on the testimonies of those involved.
By addressing the immediate need for victim safety, the policies prioritise protective measures that can prevent further harm and intimidation, acknowledging the power dynamics often at play in cases of sexual offences
Recognising the unique evidentiary challenges in sexual offence cases, including the often private nature of these crimes and the lack of physical evidence, the policies propose innovative approaches to evidence collection and evaluation, aiming to ensure that the judicial process is responsive to the realities of these offences.
The focus on accountability and preventative measures is designed to address the low conviction rates and provide mechanisms that can deter potential offenders, thereby contributing to the broader goal of reducing the incidence of sexual offences - while an allegation of a sexual nature, especially if false could be damaging to the offender, the damage caused by the lack of any action due to evidence related difficulties damages far more innocent victims.
By proposing alternative pathways for seeking justice, such as civil proceedings and support for private prosecutions, the policies aim to ensure that victims have avenues to pursue justice even when the criminal justice system faces limitations in securing convictions.
The intention is not to undermine the accused's rights but to find a balance that adequately addresses the challenges inherent in prosecuting sexual offences while ensuring that the rights of all parties are respected and protected. If false accused, the suspect for a period of time will have to undergone a regime of enhanced safeguarding in order to mitigate against any risk to the victim, even if not readily present.
The policies are proposed with the intention of addressing the significant challenges faced by victims of serious sexual offences in seeking justice. They aim to provide an approach that enhances the protection and support for victims, improves the effectiveness of the judicial process in handling these cases, and ultimately contributes to a more just and equitable system for all individuals involved.
The question would be: Is it draconian to seek to abolish one type of serious offending in our society?
On an additional note, I do not wish to for all humans right legalisation to be stripped from the statue books, nor do I want to see the appeals process removed from those who wish to challenge their conviction.
What I would like to see though, for a period of time, is the temporary removal of protections under articles 6,7,13 and 17 of the ECHR for the specific serious sexual offending by invoking article 15, namely the UK believes that the low conviction rates for specific serious sexual offences is 'threatening the life of the nation' to such a degree that no other action can be taken at this time.
If such an argument was rejected, then the UK could seek to legislate on the basis that we believed our justification was valid.
Addressing the criticisms you highlight, it's essential to clarify the intent behind the proposed policies and how they are designed to address systemic issues within the criminal justice system, particularly serious sexual offences.
The starting point is not to dismiss the importance of human rights or the role of judicial systems but to recognise and address the gaps that currently exist in providing justice and support to victims of sexual offences.
Transitioning to a society where we can say that ANY allegations of a sexual nature will firstly ensure that the victim is safeguarded above all else, regardless of the risks involved.
For every allegation made, given that only around 3% of allegations are proven to be false. I would like to see the conviction rate increase from 2-3% to at least 85%. So of the 50,000 or more a year complaints, at least 42,8000 would result in positive convictions, even if the number of false allegations slightly increased. We do not live in a perfect society, therefore our justice system should not be so ‘watertight’ that allegations of any nature, regardless of credibility and/or evidence, results in NFA. We should not let the goal of perfection be the energy of the good.
The statistics highlighted, indicating a significant discrepancy between the number of allegations and successful convictions, underscore a critical challenge in the justice system's ability to effectively address and prosecute serious sexual offences.
This gap not only perpetuates the trauma for victims but also undermines public confidence in the legal system's capacity to protect and seek justice for those affected by such crimes.
The proposed policies aim to strengthen the mechanisms for protecting victims and ensuring a more effective response to allegations of serious sexual offences. In the totality, they are not intended to bypass the fundamental principles of justice or human rights but to enhance the system's ability to address these specific types of crimes more effectively. The policies seek to provide additional safeguards for victims, recognising the unique challenges in prosecuting sexual offences, which often lack physical evidence and rely heavily on the testimonies of those involved.
By addressing the immediate need for victim safety, the policies prioritise protective measures that can prevent further harm and intimidation, acknowledging the power dynamics often at play in cases of sexual offences
Recognising the unique evidentiary challenges in sexual offence cases, including the often private nature of these crimes and the lack of physical evidence, the policies propose innovative approaches to evidence collection and evaluation, aiming to ensure that the judicial process is responsive to the realities of these offences.
The focus on accountability and preventative measures is designed to address the low conviction rates and provide mechanisms that can deter potential offenders, thereby contributing to the broader goal of reducing the incidence of sexual offences - while an allegation of a sexual nature, especially if false could be damaging to the offender, the damage caused by the lack of any action due to evidence related difficulties damages far more innocent victims.
By proposing alternative pathways for seeking justice, such as civil proceedings and support for private prosecutions, the policies aim to ensure that victims have avenues to pursue justice even when the criminal justice system faces limitations in securing convictions.
The intention is not to undermine the accused's rights but to find a balance that adequately addresses the challenges inherent in prosecuting sexual offences while ensuring that the rights of all parties are respected and protected. If false accused, the suspect for a period of time will have to undergone a regime of enhanced safeguarding in order to mitigate against any risk to the victim, even if not readily present.
The policies are proposed with the intention of addressing the significant challenges faced by victims of serious sexual offences in seeking justice. They aim to provide an approach that enhances the protection and support for victims, improves the effectiveness of the judicial process in handling these cases, and ultimately contributes to a more just and equitable system for all individuals involved.
The question would be: Is it draconian to seek to abolish one type of serious offending in our society?
On an additional note, I do not wish to for all humans right legalisation to be stripped from the statue books, nor do I want to see the appeals process removed from those who wish to challenge their conviction.
What I would like to see though, for a period of time, is the temporary removal of protections under articles 6,7,13 and 17 of the ECHR for the specific serious sexual offending by invoking article 15, namely the UK believes that the low conviction rates for specific serious sexual offences is 'threatening the life of the nation' to such a degree that no other action can be taken at this time.
If such an argument was rejected, then the UK could seek to legislate on the basis that we believed our justification was valid.
(edited 2 months ago)
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Is she interested or friendly?
- Are these comments made to me racist?
- MSc dissertation survey - digital activism for violence against women and girls
- Healing Stage
- Why does every guy choose my friend over me?
- Asked a girl out again and not sure where I stand...
- long thread - i messed up with a girl i like
- How to check an assignment for AI %
- GAMSAT 2024 is online
- Alevel history help!
- Is it time to rethink our criminal justice system and 'do things differently'?
- Rethinking the nation state - what a Labour Government could do
- finding the basics of driving really hard?
- Psychology A level 16 marker advice?
- A-level Religious Studies Study Group 2022-2023
- Disclosing a disability post-UCAS entry
- Study doubts..
- Transfer of Status for DPhil student at Oxford
- I feel so deflated
- Travelling or moving?
Latest
Trending
Last reply 5 days ago
If you could instantly become fluent in any foreign language which one would it be?Last reply 3 months ago
About the NCUK IFY Program for university Studies in the UKTrending
Last reply 5 days ago
If you could instantly become fluent in any foreign language which one would it be?Last reply 3 months ago
About the NCUK IFY Program for university Studies in the UK
