A review of the offence of rape was expected to commence in the near future after the cabinet signed off the proposed terms of reference. This has not happened because Harriet Harman (who is currently care taking for Gordon Brown), has decided that the review would not go far enough. According to the Times:
"Ms Harman is understood to want a more radical overhaul of the law which could include targets for prosecutors and police to secure more convictions."
The full story can be found here.
There have also been suggestions that judges should be required to give directions to the jury in order to dispel myths surrounding rape, such as only strangers are rapists and women that were wearing tarty clothes at the time were "asking for it".
Comment:
Firstly it goes without saying that rape is an horrendous and vile crime. Women (or men for that matter), do not "ask for it", and the victim is left seriously damaged. However, in the desire to see more rapists successfully prosecuted, it is submitted that these developments are both misguided and dangerous to justice.
One of the most repugnant parts of this story is the idea of setting "targets" for prosecutors and police officers. Apart from the fact that for all of Labour's target setting they have still failed to improve any of our public services, the use of targets in this sphere of public life is immensely dangerous.
Take for example a CPS employed barrister. They are, under this proposal, set a target for the number of rape convictions they must achieve. It is getting near to the next reporting period and they have not hit their target. A rape case then lands on their desk which they then prosecute. With the need to hit their target and the thought of the annual review they will be soon subjected to, will the interests of justice be foremost in this prosecutor's mind? How is an advocate possibly able to remain impersonal and fair in such a situation? It is submitted that this would create an unacceptable conflict of interests, and subsequently the Criminal Justice System and the rights of defendants will suffer.
This problem is even more acute when viewed one level down and one considers the affect that this will have on the police officer assigned to the case. With redundancies being made throughout police forces the pressure to achieve results will be even greater. This is particularly alarming when we consider the role of the police in an investigation, that of collecting evidence. As we have seen in other example such as the NHS, this pressure to meet targets has seen false information, massaging of statistics, and ultimately people dying in corridors on trolleys. Adding pressure through the need to hit targets for successful prosecutions for rape allegations will ultimately lead to unfair practices in the collection of evidence.
I am also unconvinced as to how a Judge can give a direction to the jury of the type suggested that would still be impartial and fair to the defendant. If it is a main arm of the defence that the woman was drunk (as was the defendant), and that she came onto him, is it then fair for the Judge to give a direction along the lines of "Just because a woman is drunk does not mean she will be more promiscuous or open to sexual advances".
I welcome comment and discussion on these suggestions, and hope that you are all well.
Yours
BoB
"Ms Harman is understood to want a more radical overhaul of the law which could include targets for prosecutors and police to secure more convictions."
The full story can be found here.
There have also been suggestions that judges should be required to give directions to the jury in order to dispel myths surrounding rape, such as only strangers are rapists and women that were wearing tarty clothes at the time were "asking for it".
Comment:
Firstly it goes without saying that rape is an horrendous and vile crime. Women (or men for that matter), do not "ask for it", and the victim is left seriously damaged. However, in the desire to see more rapists successfully prosecuted, it is submitted that these developments are both misguided and dangerous to justice.
One of the most repugnant parts of this story is the idea of setting "targets" for prosecutors and police officers. Apart from the fact that for all of Labour's target setting they have still failed to improve any of our public services, the use of targets in this sphere of public life is immensely dangerous.
Take for example a CPS employed barrister. They are, under this proposal, set a target for the number of rape convictions they must achieve. It is getting near to the next reporting period and they have not hit their target. A rape case then lands on their desk which they then prosecute. With the need to hit their target and the thought of the annual review they will be soon subjected to, will the interests of justice be foremost in this prosecutor's mind? How is an advocate possibly able to remain impersonal and fair in such a situation? It is submitted that this would create an unacceptable conflict of interests, and subsequently the Criminal Justice System and the rights of defendants will suffer.
This problem is even more acute when viewed one level down and one considers the affect that this will have on the police officer assigned to the case. With redundancies being made throughout police forces the pressure to achieve results will be even greater. This is particularly alarming when we consider the role of the police in an investigation, that of collecting evidence. As we have seen in other example such as the NHS, this pressure to meet targets has seen false information, massaging of statistics, and ultimately people dying in corridors on trolleys. Adding pressure through the need to hit targets for successful prosecutions for rape allegations will ultimately lead to unfair practices in the collection of evidence.
I am also unconvinced as to how a Judge can give a direction to the jury of the type suggested that would still be impartial and fair to the defendant. If it is a main arm of the defence that the woman was drunk (as was the defendant), and that she came onto him, is it then fair for the Judge to give a direction along the lines of "Just because a woman is drunk does not mean she will be more promiscuous or open to sexual advances".
I welcome comment and discussion on these suggestions, and hope that you are all well.
Yours
BoB
12 comments:
Sorry? Targets? Is Harman an iditot?
The role of the prosecutor is to provide evidence to the Court and Jury. Once they have done so and once the Jury is satisfied that they are sure then a verdict on conviction is reached.
You can't set targets for convictions, I am pretty sure that any guidelines would be illegal to produce, especially in regard to Art 6 convention rights.
Apparently I am an idiot for not being able to spell..
The notion of targets with a crime like rape is stupid - particularly given that so few cases actually reach the courts given lack of evidence. As I know very well, it all comes down to one person's word against another. For more of my thoughts check out the blog post I did earlier in the week about my own experiences with the system.
Maybe an "iditot" is a baby idiot?
As is obvious I agree with you completely. The woman is dangerously misguided on all things to do with women's rights and equality.
I like the Art 6 angle, obvious now but not something I had contemplated.
I wish I had the energy to join in the rant against this profoundly idiotic woman, but I dont (suffice to say I think you all know the minx opinion, the clue bieng in the I word....)
i agree that targets are not the way forward, but I don't agree with your point about directions given by Judges:
You said "Firstly it goes without saying that rape is an horrendous and vile crime. Women (or men for that matter), do not "ask for it", and the victim is left seriously damaged." Unfortunately one of the reasons that rape convictions are so so is because that *doesn't* go without saying. There are still many people who think that women who waer revelaing clothing, drink or who have any sexual history are 'askign for it' or contributing towards the attack.
In a survey as recent as March last year, the finding were that "Almost 33% of those surveyed thought a victim was in some way responsible for being raped if she flirted with a man or failed to say 'no' clearly.
10% of people felt the victim was entirely at fault if she had a number of sexual partners.
That survey was in Ireland but Amnesty carried out similar survey which gave similar results in the rest of the UK.
For a Judge to give directions which specifically remind the jury that wearing attractice clothes, drinking, flirting or having had sex in the past do *not* constitute consent or allow consent to be presumed are wholly reasonable.
The question is very straighforward. Did this person consent to sexual intercourse? If the answer is No, then it doesn't matter how drunk or flirty they were, it is still rape.
Marjorie's point is very valid. Rape and perceptions of rape are still a BIG problem, regardless of what BoB believes is obvious.
A standard set of guidance to be issued to the jury prior to the trial's start would probably be the best way to avert the sort of problem you seem to be envisaging, where after a defence has been made a judge might appear to subtly undermine it by giving 'guidance'.
It is remarkable, rather valuable answer
It is remarkable, very valuable idea
I shall simply keep silent better
Bravo, your idea it is magnificent
I suggest you to visit a site on which there is a lot of information on a theme interesting you. Hot Health
Post a Comment