0% Villa-Titus Bramble arrested

[Hopadop]

there is certainly no problem in getting rapists convicted, other than the difficulty a juror would have when it's often one person's word against the other.

Usually when a footballer has sex it is in a room full of people. You'd think there would be plenty of witnesses

This is true, but they lost their moral compass climbing the north face of Mount Wonga.

[Hopadop]

The problem isn’t about protecting the identity; it should be about increasing the conviction rate. Only 6% of men who are brought to trial are convicted, yet it is thought that 1 in 20 women have been raped.

 It’s something of a disgrace, but it’s quite possibly the most challenging area of criminal law. You read cases like R v Bree and you can see just how difficult a decision it is for anybody to make. 

The 6% figure has been misunderstood by some and deliberately misapplied by others. The trial conviction rate is actually 58%, which is actually a bit higher than for most other offences and, given the nature of most rape cases ('stranger' rapes are quite rare, the allegation is normally in the context of an existing or former relationship) could be seen as surprisingly high.

They've changed the law on rape itself, introduced dedicated and specialist police officers, use ABE interviews and special measures in court and have limited the extent to which you can cross examine the complainants, all in an attempt to increase conviction rates.

All fine, but there is certainly no problem in getting rapists convicted, other than the difficulty a juror would have when it's often one person's word against the other.

Edit: I've miss read my quote. Its 6% of all rape cases result in conviction, which still emphasises my point, that from the point of complaint, 94% of men will not be prosecuted, despite BCS figures suggesting 23% of women have been raped (and also 3% of men sexually assaulted). Government statistics indicate that 75-85% of rapes are never reported (you'd assume these being spouse rapes). That is a disgrace.

SOA 2003 has clarified the law somewhat with regards to rape, but given how most cases invariably involve intoxication and how most women know the male involved, then you’re still dealing in a minefield with regards to the reasonable belief in consent.

You're a bit all over the place with this 6%. It was publicised by Harriet Harman and is a great example of lies, damn lies etc.

6% convicted of rape doesn't mean 94% were not prosecuted. Some were prosecuted and acquitted, others were convicted of offences other than rape.

The 6% makes no allowance for false allegations or those the complainant does not want to substantiate, false or not. What do you do with the latter?

If the issue at trial is consent, forensic evidence etc isn't going to help. Make an allowance for nervousness on both sides and the burden of proof and it is, as I said, perhaps surprising that 58% of rape trials end in a conviction for rape.

Rape cases are aggressively prosecuted. Nobody wants to make the decision to drop the case, it's easier to pass the buck. Eventually it all unravels and you've got another big factor in your 6%.

The SOA didn't clarify much at all. It made it easier to secure convictions by bringing a lot of (drunken often) sex potentially within the ambit of rape.

Meaningless stats aside, I'm confused by your stance on this. The system doesn't exist just to convict defendants. You accept how difficult these cases can be but think it's a disgrace there aren't more convictions? You get to the point where you won't get more of the guilty convicted without sacrificing some of the innocent. We're already at or possibly getting past that point.

[damon loves JT]

Meaningless stats aside, I'm confused by your stance on this. The system doesn't exist just to convict defendants. You accept how difficult these cases can be but think it's a disgrace there aren't more convictions? You get to the point where you won't get more of the guilty convicted without sacrificing some of the innocent. We're already at or possibly getting past that point.

Whoah, enough of all this nuance shit. What shall I do with this noose?

[adrenachrome]

Meaningless stats aside, I'm confused by your stance on this. The system doesn't exist just to convict defendants. You accept how difficult these cases can be but think it's a disgrace there aren't more convictions? You get to the point where you won't get more of the guilty convicted without sacrificing some of the innocent. We're already at or possibly getting past that point.

Whoah, enough of all this nuance shit. What shall I do with this noose?

Lemon, lube and a chair and you've got yourself a party right there.

[WALTERS WARRIORS]

Its the old should a man`s name be given out unless convicted story