UKIP: Rape: targets not the answer

Westcountryman · 15-11-2007, 12:05 AM

Whether you like it or not, if it's his word against hers you MUST find Not Guilty.

You can't convict someone on the basis of whether they 'probably' did it. That's not how the system works and I pray it never gets to that stage.

Yes, rape is a terrible crime but convicting an innocent man is even worse.

If there's no supporting evidence then tough, no case.

g hall · 15-11-2007, 10:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ModernUKIP

You can't convict someone on the basis of whether they 'probably' did it. That's not how the system works and I pray it never gets to that stage.

Have you ever sat on a jury? believe me to be tried by your peers scares the **** out of me especially when you consider that The Sun (wot won it) is the best selling paper in the UK

rjt · 15-11-2007, 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by g hall

Have you ever sat on a jury? believe me to be tried by your peers scares the **** out of me especially when you consider that The Sun (wot won it) is the best selling paper in the UK

I hade never thought of it like that, I have had one sit in judgement on me though and it worked out ok.

John Carter · 15-11-2007, 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by g hall

Have you ever sat on a jury? believe me to be tried by your peers scares the **** out of me especially when you consider that The Sun (wot won it) is the best selling paper in the UK

Frightening indeed. I wonder if one can actually stand up in court and say "these people are not my peers, these people are morons"?

ukpopdems · 15-11-2007, 12:43 PM

Well, the success of the Jury system shows then even Sun readers can measure up to the task when they are called upon.

In rape cases, the government has already interefered with justice to make more men guilty. Inhibitions on questioning of the plaintif, for example, and the imbalance of naming the accused, but not the plaintif. All these try to edge towards targets. As does the suggestion that womens' innebriation should lead to any elective sex being defined as rape (apparently only drunk women need protecting, not drunk men).

But one thing to remember. These rape juries are made up of at least 50% women. It is these everyday women who believe the man's evidence and disbelieve the female to throw a case out. So there is no man/woman divide on this issue in practice. The issue could be evidential or it could be in the definition of rape. That's why we need an open discussion.

It is odd that in rape cases, men are not found innocent, as in any other case, but 'get away with it'. No matter that the innocent man's life and standing is possibly destroyed.

It's a difficult one alright.

g hall · 15-11-2007, 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Carter

Frightening indeed. I wonder if one can actually stand up in court and say "these people are not my peers, these people are morons"?

I suppose we can try it when UKIP and other anti EU parties become illegal

15-11-2007, 12:05 AM	#21 (permalink)
Westcountryman Uber Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: The Westcountry. Posts: 5,922 Party: None	Whether you like it or not, if it's his word against hers you MUST find Not Guilty. You can't convict someone on the basis of whether they 'probably' did it. That's not how the system works and I pray it never gets to that stage. Yes, rape is a terrible crime but convicting an innocent man is even worse. If there's no supporting evidence then tough, no case. __________________ Manus haec inimica tyrannis ense petit placidam sub libertate quietam - "This hand of mine, which is hostile to tyrants, seeks by the sword quiet peace under liberty."

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

15-11-2007, 12:43 PM	#25 (permalink)
ukpopdems Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 237	Well, the success of the Jury system shows then even Sun readers can measure up to the task when they are called upon. In rape cases, the government has already interefered with justice to make more men guilty. Inhibitions on questioning of the plaintif, for example, and the imbalance of naming the accused, but not the plaintif. All these try to edge towards targets. As does the suggestion that womens' innebriation should lead to any elective sex being defined as rape (apparently only drunk women need protecting, not drunk men). But one thing to remember. These rape juries are made up of at least 50% women. It is these everyday women who believe the man's evidence and disbelieve the female to throw a case out. So there is no man/woman divide on this issue in practice. The issue could be evidential or it could be in the definition of rape. That's why we need an open discussion. It is odd that in rape cases, men are not found innocent, as in any other case, but 'get away with it'. No matter that the innocent man's life and standing is possibly destroyed. It's a difficult one alright.