The specific offences of rape, serious sexual assault and indecent assault should be abolished, since they serve only to keep on the streets people who ought to be behind bars. Instead, the sexual element should be made an aggravating factor in offences against the person generally, enabling the maximum sentence to be doubled.
That way, a few silly cases that currently come to court would not do so, while many serious cases that currently either never make it to court or end in an acquittal would at least end in a conviction for something. My jaw drops when I hear or read reports (no doubt truthful) of women with serious injuries whose assailants were never charged with anything because there was considered little or no chance of a conviction for rape. Why were they not charged with, say, grievous bodily harm? This way, they would be.
Furthermore, this would be achieved without compromising fundamental principles such as trial by jury and the burden of proof on the part of the prosecution, both of which have already been eroded far too much (i.e., particularly in the latter case, at all).
At the same time, why is no one asking why, if there are so few convictions for rape, almost nobody who makes a false allegation of rape is ever even charged with perjury (with which, given its prevalence, next to nobody is ever charged in general), or with perverting the course of justice, or with making false statements to the Police?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The answer to your last question is a pretty simple one: the "beyond reasonable doubt" test, which prevents so many rape allegations reaching conviction, would have exactly the same effect on perjury allegations.
ReplyDeleteWell, that didn't seem to apply to, say, Jonathan Aitken, and his false testimony certainly hadn't sent anyone to prison, nor could it have done. The acquital in itself is proof beyond reasonable doubt of the perjury.
ReplyDeletePrepare yourself for the backlash when you moderate comments. All sex with men is rape, you know. And don't you dare question that, not for one moment.
ReplyDeleteThese people run all three parties and have arranged it so that they and their fellow-travellers are given priority as parliamentary candidates. In the Labour case, this is dun by downright corrupt means: money actually changes hands through Emily's List.
So bring on your electoral reforms. The idea of a party like that getting a sixth of the vote (a third of all women) in any area, or a candidate like that getting past your open primary selection procedure, or a union or other civil body voting to fund any such party or candidate, is magnificiently inconceivable.
Take a look at this:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.thefword.org.uk/blog/2007/11/swedens_
new_fem
David, I think you've misunderstood. If you have to prove a crime beyond reasonable doubt to get a conviction, then "This testimony is insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt" is absolutely not equivalent to "This testimony is, beyond reasonable doubt, false". This is a pretty trivial point, frankly, and I don't really understand why you can't see it.
ReplyDeleteIn Aitken's case, it was proved beyond reasonable doubt that he had lied on oath: that is, he said something which documents discovered by the Guardian proved beyond reasonable doubt to be absolutely untrue. So he was guilty of perjury. That's independent of the question of who, if anyone, he hurt. (While his false testimony couldn't have sent anyone to prison because of the nature of our libel laws, it could have led to the Guardian being found guilty of libel for a story which was, in fact, substantially true - which is the kind of thing our legal system has an interest in preventing.)
The CPS has to make a decision about taking a prosecution, based on the likelihood of conviction. An alleged rape victim, whose alleged assailant is not found guilty, is not by definition guilty of perjury - her testimony has simply not been found to be beyond reasonable doubt.
Think of it in mathematical terms. If you need 100% of the probability, and you only get 90%, then you don't win. But if you then take the opposite side, against the 90%, then you only have a 10% chance of winning.
The point is that the legal system is (rightly) massively biased against the prosecution in all cases. This is why few failed criminal prosecutions, not just in rap cases, lead to perjury prosecutions against prosecution witnesses.
Do you get it?
Ah the CPS, the trial before the trial. Of course.
ReplyDeleteGet rid of it, and let's get back to local firms of solicitors working with the Police to build prosecution work into their ordinary round of businesss.