Another prove your innocence case

[Mojooo]

otolith said:

Victim is likely to be without their phone for a substantial amount of time.

That is the nub of it
If it coudl be done in a managed way where you sit down and go through it togetehr and Polcie do not take away anything that is not relevant i suspect many would agree.

In reality the Polcie dont have the resources and will need a phoen for ages and if they do it, they will keep an entire record of the phone otherwise the defence will cry foul and say its selective showing of possible evidence.

[Bigends]

Mojooo said:

otolith said:

Victim is likely to be without their phone for a substantial amount of time.

That is the nub of it
If it coudl be done in a managed way where you sit down and go through it togetehr and Polcie do not take away anything that is not relevant i suspect many would agree.

In reality the Polcie dont have the resources and will need a phoen for ages and if they do it, they will keep an entire record of the phone otherwise the defence will cry foul and say its selective showing of possible evidence.

It's likely the entire contents if the phone will be downloaded and later gone through at leisure. How about laptops? Just as likely to contain contacts between parties?

[Gameface]

otolith said:

Victim is likely to be without their phone for a substantial amount of time.

The horror...

[otolith]

Gameface said:

otolith said:

Victim is likely to be without their phone for a substantial amount of time.

The horror...

Pretty inconvenient, I would say.

[Gameface]

otolith said:

Gameface said:

otolith said:

Victim is likely to be without their phone for a substantial amount of time.

The horror...

Pretty inconvenient, I would say.

Compared to letting your rapist go free?

Not really.

And as has already been said, the contents will be downloaded to view when it's time to do so. The phone can be returned to its owner promptly.

[captain_cynic]

Gameface said:

otolith said:

Victim is likely to be without their phone for a substantial amount of time.

The horror...

Well, yes.

For most people, their mobile phone is their sole point of contact and people who've just gone through a major trauma need support from friends, family, not to mention being able to be contactable by medical professionals and law enforcement.

However as others have said, it's far more likely police will simply copy the content to an emulator as not to damage evidence which will mean a few hours at most.

[spaximus]

Others will disagree and as the Father of a Daughter I would want to be able to see the texts of anyone alleged of rape being made available. If the accused has texted that he wants to rape someone before then it is a good thing to have easy access to them.

On the other hand if a woman has texted a friend that she is going to have a threesome with a couple of footballers and then cries rape is it somehow a different case?

I know at any point the woman can say no and that should be it, however if sex was consensual and then they had next day regret and made an accusation then it is hard to see why their phone should not be quizzed in the same way.

It was inevitable that those supporting women would have their spin and say on it but it might make people think in future what they text.

[otolith]

Gameface said:

Compared to letting your rapist go free?

Not really.

And as has already been said, the contents will be downloaded to view when it's time to do so. The phone can be returned to its owner promptly.

My only experience of this was after my wife died, and the police took her phone. They had it for long enough for me to forget about it (and for them to dispose of it). I would not expect it to be returned promptly.

[The Surveyor]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Indeed, the issue is about 'disclosure', and to ensure there is a fair trail it has to be in the best interest of justice for both parties to be equally required to allow access to their phone data.

[jsc15]

The BBC online headline specifically says "Rape victims asked to hand phones to police".

Is it not the case that previously automatically defining anyone *claiming* rape as a "victim" (then *sometimes* being found out to be a spurned man-hater) is what's caused this process to be necessary?

My sympathy is with genuine cases, but it's actually the nutjob feminazis that have necessitated this new process, not the police/courts or the man in the street

[The Surveyor]

jsc15 said:

…..

My sympathy is with genuine cases, but it's actually the nutjob feminazis that have necessitated this new process, not the police/courts or the man in the street

I thought the trigger for this was the increased number of cases collapsing due to a lack of disclosure from the prosecution?

[jsc15]

The Surveyor said:

jsc15 said:

…..

My sympathy is with genuine cases, but it's actually the nutjob feminazis that have necessitated this new process, not the police/courts or the man in the street

I thought the trigger for this was the increased number of cases collapsing due to a lack of disclosure from the prosecution?

Basically the 2 things overlapping, with the "victim" & lawyers withholding/overlooking relevant info in order to secure a conviction, that at it's core is unsound, i.e. as a broad generalisation, the prosecution are always going to overlook previous history of consensual activity (or a history of failed accusations & general man-hating)

[JagLover]

jsc15 said:

My sympathy is with genuine cases, but it's actually the nutjob feminazis that have necessitated this new process, not the police/courts or the man in the street

If so only indirectly

One of the broadsheets/Spectator had a long article from a Solicitor who specialises in defending these sorts of cases and he has seen a big rise in the numbers contacting him over the last few years, regarding usually well behaved young men.

The issue he was discussing and which, in his experience, has driven this rise is around ability to give consent on grounds of inebriation. The rather common scenario these days of two young people getting it on after meeting on a drunken night out.

In the past the girl would have shrugged it off now they will often retrospectively withdraw consent. Perhaps this is "feminazi" behaviour or perhaps it is viewing women as helpless victims rather than free agents responsible for their own actions.

Whatever it is young men need to take care out there and perhaps remember the old three date rule.

[anonymous-user]

jsc15 said:

Basically the 2 things overlapping, with the "victim" & lawyers withholding/overlooking relevant info in order to secure a conviction

I'd be more inclined to say it's the result of a chronically under-resourced justice system that's leaving cases without a proper review until the trial is upon it. Then CPS lawyers will be seeing deficiencies in the cases and asking the investigators for more evidence. Some of this will come out as late as during trial.

Whether it's considered a good thing or not, I don't know, but it's an incompetent rather than malicious system.

It makes sense to formalise how evidence is gathered from victims where communications data may hold relevant issue. Sadly the headlines have focused on the rape element, however that's just one offence that would be affected.

[Derek Smith]

JagLover said:

If so only indirectly

One of the broadsheets/Spectator had a long article from a Solicitor who specialises in defending these sorts of cases and he has seen a big rise in the numbers contacting him over the last few years, regarding usually well behaved young men.

The issue he was discussing and which, in his experience, has driven this rise is around ability to give consent on grounds of inebriation. The rather common scenario these days of two young people getting it on after meeting on a drunken night out.

In the past the girl would have shrugged it off now they will often retrospectively withdraw consent. Perhaps this is "feminazi" behaviour or perhaps it is viewing women as helpless victims rather than free agents responsible for their own actions.

Whatever it is young men need to take care out there and perhaps remember the old three date rule.

I'm not sure about the retrospectively bit. If the victim is not in a fit state to give consent then it is at the time, regardless of how many dates. I don't see how a woman is responsible for a man raping her even if she was drunk.

I'm not sure that 'in the past' the victims did shrug it off. The problem was that juries were reluctant to convict. That's changed now and not before time. I remember this argument when I gave rape lessons back in the 80s. It was clear then it was rape.

[JagLover]

Derek Smith said:

I'm not sure about the retrospectively bit. If the victim is not in a fit state to give consent then it is at the time, regardless of how many dates. I don't see how a woman is responsible for a man raping her even if she was drunk.

I'm not sure that 'in the past' the victims did shrug it off. The problem was that juries were reluctant to convict. That's changed now and not before time. I remember this argument when I gave rape lessons back in the 80s. It was clear then it was rape.

It depends on how you are defining "rape". As the lawyer pointed out in the article even if the woman is enthusiastically giving consent, and is a fully willing participant, the man can be guilty of rape legally if the woman is judged too drunk to have given that consent. Whether a jury would convict is a whole other issue.

That is where the whole issue of responsibility for ones actions and sexual agency comes from. Based on that article, and the cases that are coming to court, there has been a change in many young women's attitudes in that a number of them will report rape in that scenario whereas even a decade ago they wouldn't have.

Young men need to be aware that even when they are equally drunk as the woman who they are having consensual sex with, they are the only ones accountable for their actions. Social mores of the past protected men as well as women and casual encounters expose them to far more risk.

[Dr Jekyll]

Derek Smith said:

I'm not sure about the retrospectively bit. If the victim is not in a fit state to give consent then it is at the time, regardless of how many dates. I don't see how a woman is responsible for a man raping her even if she was drunk.

I'm not sure that 'in the past' the victims did shrug it off. The problem was that juries were reluctant to convict. That's changed now and not before time. I remember this argument when I gave rape lessons back in the 80s. It was clear then it was rape.

But the point is that he is responsible for realising that her blood alcohol level renders apparent consent null and void, even though he is equally drunk. That seems to most of us a double standard.

[Derek Smith]

Dr Jekyll said:

But the point is that he is responsible for realising that her blood alcohol level renders apparent consent null and void, even though he is equally drunk. That seems to most of us a double standard.

Let's look at double standards.

You go out of an evening with mates, get a little too drunk and wake up in the morning to discover you've been buggered. You mention it to the bloke beside you in the bed and he says it’s down to you for getting so drunk. Would you shrug it off as one of those things? It seems to be the recommended way for women to cope with such assaults, at least according to one poster.

It seems that some suggest it is the responsibility of the woman in rape cases not to get drunk. Others might think it is the responsibility of the bloke to ensure that he has full consent before he acts. The suggestion of blood/alcohol level is disingenuous. It is not a measure of whether you are capable of giving consent.

There needs to be proof in rape cases. Merely saying there was no consent is not enough.

I’ve been involved in investigations of around 200 rape cases or prosecutions. I struggle to think of one where there was any doubt that consent was not present. That doesn’t mean that it wasn’t the basis of some of the defences.

I know of two cases where there was a false accusation of rape in my time in Brighton. Both were well though out accusations and both were well investigated. Don’t get me wrong, I understand that being accused of rape when you are not guilty is an horrific crime to be a victim of. However, I would suggest that being the victim of the offence is much, much more frequent by a considerable factor.

[otolith]

Derek Smith said:

I remember this argument when I gave rape lessons back in the 80s.

[Dr Jekyll]

Derek Smith said:

Dr Jekyll said:

But the point is that he is responsible for realising that her blood alcohol level renders apparent consent null and void, even though he is equally drunk. That seems to most of us a double standard.

Let's look at double standards.

The double standard is in saying that a man is responsible for his actions when drunk, but a woman isn't. Who's to say she didn't sexually assault him?

Derek Smith said:

You go out of an evening with mates, get a little too drunk and wake up in the morning to discover you've been buggered. You mention it to the bloke beside you in the bed and he says it’s down to you for getting so drunk. Would you shrug it off as one of those things? It seems to be the recommended way for women to cope with such assaults, at least according to one poster.

If I was gay I could well shrug it off as the consequence of getting drunk. But in any case nobody is saying that women should shrug off rape. Just shrug off the consequence of regretting consent. If she didn't say 'yes' then that's rape, but if she says 'yes' didn't count because she was drunk, that's different.