Fair point and that is why I started this thread.

Whenever this topic comes up politicians always start out saying that men / boys need to be educated about this unacceptable behaviour. I don't disagree they should but there will always be people who break the law so it's a politicians answer which doesn't really solve the problem. We shouldn't speed but we do.

Better police investigating definitely, I think the way they handles these cases has got better but no doubt people who understand this in detail would say more could be done.

So we come back again to the central point how can these victims get justice whilst ensuring the defendant gets a fair trial.

One more point

The reason most defence lawyers plump for the jury, is that you are bound to get disagreement amongst 12 people on a decision. Therefore you are far more likely to get a Not Guilty verdict with a jury, than with a single judge.
It's a numbers game.
That's why Scotland is trialling Judges, to improve the conviction rates.

"The facts have changed", Rishi Sunak

And a jury is not a 'right'. The UK doesn't have a bill of Rights, we have liberties. And in any event a Jury is not required in all courts, for example a Magistrates.

"The facts have changed", Rishi Sunak

the problem pivots on ambiguity and consent.

A law graduate, from Limerick, just got 4 years in Jail. The crime started as consensual sex but then he started behaving roughly.....probably copying a blue movie or got a bit stupid with the drink.

Now if she lets you in there, she should still have the right to say 'No' and say 'stop'. But it is very different to a rape by a stranger in a dark alleyway.

[Link]

Rapes also occur within marriage. How does a justice system deal with a man and a woman telling conflicting stories ? Divorces are often adversarial.

Edited by PalazioVecchio (28 Apr 2023 8.34am)

Eze Peasy at Anfield....

Yes you are. Pretty sad to see and completely at odds with the thoughtful discussion up to that point

it's easy to blur the lines with a lot of alleged sexual offences, which is a significant reason why conviction rates are low. Also evidence gathering is problematic, especially (you would think) for historical allegations.
Once consensual activities are have commenced, where do you draw the line ?
"yeah, she was a great girl in the sack until she 5hlt in my mouth. That's when i said 'no, stop !'"

It is so much easier for an experience defence lawyer to cast significant doubt over any alleged offences, even besmirching victims characters, than try to get a cast-iron conviction.

And just to add , when conviction rates are so low, coupled with the ridiculously lenient sentences, no wonder victims are reluctant to come forward.

I bet there are a large number of convicts, who upon release , offend again. That is the really sickening bit.

Edited by Forest Hillbilly (29 Apr 2023 8.26pm)

"The facts have changed", Rishi Sunak