Can anyone explain to me how the conviction rate for rape is demonstrably wrong? What would be the correct rate, and why? The real scandal is that there are so few prosecutions for what is clearly very widespread perjury, attempting to pervert the course of justice, and making false statements to the Police.
Just as there must be no reversal of the burden of proof or of the right to conduct one’s own defence, so there must be no extension of anonymity to defendants. Rather, there should be no anonymity for adult accusers, either. We either have an open system of justice, or we do not.
The fact is that the specific offence of rape only serves to keep on the streets people who should certainly be taken out of circulation. Instead, we need to replace the offences of rape, serious sexual assault and indecent assault with an aggravating circumstance to the ordinary categories of assault, enabling the maximum, and therefore also the minimum, sentences to be doubled, since every offence should carry a minimum sentence of one third of its maximum sentence, or 15 years for life. That way, those poor women with broken bones and worse, whose assailants were never convicted of anything, really would have received justice.
Meanwhile, congratulations to Claire Fox on yesterday’s Woman’s Hour (which today called Harriet Harman “the Deputy Prime Minister” without correction), for pointing out that there were never any “rape camps” in Bosnia. There were never all sorts of things in Bosnia. But there were all sorts of other things, as the Bosnian Croats are now realising the hard way. Nor were there any people fed into paper shredders in Iraq. Nor were there any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Nor was there any Axis of Evil. Nor was there any link between Iraq and 9/11. Nor was there any link between Afghanistan and 9/11. Nor … well, this one could go on for an awfully long time.
And one last thing on Harman. She did vote for Margaret Beckett for either or both of Leader and Deputy Leader? Didn’t she…?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Replace the specific offenses of rape and sexual assault with "an aggravating circumstance to the ordinary categories of assault"?
ReplyDeleteThat's a solution in search of a problem.
The scenario you've laid out (in which a dangerous offender is let off scot-free in a case involving a badly injured woman, only because a rape charge wouldn't stick, and no lesser charge was available) doesn't occur in real life. Lesser charges are always available; charging someone with rape is not a bar to also charging him aggravated assault, battery, assault with a deadly weapon, or anything else that applies.
"The scenario you've laid out (in which a dangerous offender is let off scot-free in a case involving a badly injured woman, only because a rape charge wouldn't stick, and no lesser charge was available) doesn't occur in real life."
ReplyDeleteYou haven't the faintest idea what you are talking about. One hardly knows where to begin.
I do so have the faintest idea what I'm talking about.
ReplyDeleteProsecutors can and do bring as many charges as apply in the case. They are not limited to bringing only a rape charge.
But that's what they do. Which often means bringing no charge at all, no matter how horrific the injuries.
ReplyDelete