[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I actually think the "silent rape alarm" is a brilliant idea? It's been kind of proven that personal attack alarms aren't all that effective, but something along the same lines that could be pulled that immediately starts recording audio (and preferably uploads it to a secure remote location).

Would go a long way to proving lack of consent in court, surely?

A really great idea T.S. It WOULD actually.

[Vicky.]

Anything that would maybe get conviction rapes up is a good idea

However I can already see the defenses for it and the accusations of lying still. All it would be would be the likes of 'we were roleplaying'. Etc. There will always be a lie. And it will be accepted near every time too. Many people freeze when raped/attacked and the ability to speak is gone totally (apparently the majority mammal reaction) so even if they could move to get the alarm thing, it would just be the sounds of one person having sex (or more if mutiple attackers) and it could be claimed that the victim just did not make a sound during a consensual encounter. Or sometimes, the sounds made when in pain/trying to get away sound fairly similar to those in pleasure too

Edit. Though connecting automatically to the local police station (and the police to actually respond) could be a good help actually, if such a device could be made. Could help in many cases too, the likes of 'normal' assaults, muggings maybe, an such.

What would help, would be to stop allowing defence teams to bring in irrelevant stuff such as the victims previous sexual history, when the victims team is not allowed to bring up anything about the accused life, even the fact that they have previous convictions for rape! Its just disgusting that this girl spent 8 days being cross examined where the actual accused people got a few hours. Who exactly was on trial here?

Also I think in sexual assault cases (and possibly all serious cases tbh) a panel of experts should be used rather than a jury. Tbh rape myths are far too widespread and repeated in the media and such on a regular basis and so many people believe them so its never going to be a fair trial. If a person does not act like 'the perfect victim' (ie. crying nonestop for a week afterwards, developing anxiety, etc) then they are automatically lying to many people.

[user104658]

Let's face it, if we had some way of ensuring impartiality, ALL cases would be better tried by panels of experts rather than random laypeople. The jury system is deeply flawed and far too often comes down to "who has the more experienced and more convincing representation".

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Let's face it, if we had some way of ensuring impartiality, ALL cases would be better tried by panels of experts rather than random laypeople. The jury system is deeply flawed and far too often comes down to "who has the more experienced and more convincing representation".

Who would these rape experts be?
Does evidence of physical assault count as nothing then, she was bleeding everywhere for a start now to my mind that's a convincing representation of rape.
She was described as 'hysterical' by a taxi driver, She the next morning stated she had been raped and the encounter she had was not consensual.

My theory is that this meritocracy we live in has diverged into the justice system.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Who would these rape experts be?

I said ALL trials, as the outcomes would probably be more accurate if there was a jury of trained doctors, psychologists, sociologists etc. instead of Greg from Tesco and Samantha from the Chippy.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

She was described as 'hysterical' by a taxi driver,

And by the guys' friend too.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I said ALL trials, as the outcomes would probably be more accurate if there was a jury of trained doctors, psychologists, sociologists etc. instead of Greg from Tesco and Samantha from the Chippy.

How feasible is it that 12 professionals will be available for every single trial?...
Come on TS get some perspective, and 12 peers whether they work at tesco or the chippy are perfectly capable of making a reasoned decision based on the facts, what kind of a society are you proposing that only doctors and psychologist are capable of making an informed decision based on evidence?

What could these people know that sam and greg don't? they are given the same information :/

[thesheriff443]

I do think people are forgetting at least half of the jury will be women!, who come to a conclusion based on the evidence they hear.

[thesheriff443]

Are rape cases a by product to the fact people are having more casual sex with more partners than before and sex is taken too lightly?

[thesheriff443]

I think an anti rape device could easily be intergrated with the fit bit watch.

[lime]

Originally Posted by thesheriff443

I do think people are forgetting at least half of the jury will be women!, who come to a conclusion based on the evidence they hear.

No you are wrong there Sheiriff which you continue to do about this case...the jury in this case consisted of 3 women and 9 men......you also claimed earlier in this thread that the girl in this case never mentioned rape originally wrong again..the first message from this girl was saying she was raped...she was however questioned for 2 days over why she never told those in the rape crisis centre she was orally raped.....over those 2 days she told them that she thought rape would mean anally or vagina "seems quite plauseable for me " she told them over those 2 days that she thought a penis being shoved her mouth was sexual assault

[thesheriff443]

Originally Posted by lime

No you are wrong there Sheiriff which you continue to do about this case...the jury in this case consisted of 3 women and 9 men......you also claimed earlier in this thread that the girl in this case never mentioned rape originally wrong again..the first message from this girl was saying she was raped...she was however questioned for 2 days over why she never told those in the rape crisis centre she was orally raped.....over those 2 days she told them that she thought rape would mean anally or vagina "seems quite plauseable for me " she told them over those 2 days that she thought a penis being shoved her mouth was sexual assault

Then I stand corrected on the jury being split equally, in my eyes the fact it was not is totally wrong.

I don't remember saying the girl in this case never mentioned being raped.

To be honest I have not read up on this case in details like other members have, I have touched on the wider picture and women in general going home with people they only just met.

[thesheriff443]

Are you coming in for coffer after a night out.

What do members associate this saying with?

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

How feasible is it that 12 professionals will be available for every single trial?...

Not very realistic but that doesn't mean it wouldnt be better.

Come on TS get some perspective, and 12 peers whether they work at tesco or the chippy are perfectly capable of making a reasoned decision based on the facts, what kind of a society are you proposing that only doctors and psychologist are capable of making an informed decision based on evidence?

There are many people in various jobs who are indeed capable. There are also many who lap up tabloid headlines and will be easily swayed by a lawyer's rhetoric. I'm not really interested in playing the "everyone in the world is actually intelligent and rational and how dare anyone suggest otherwise!" game. Some people are thick and easily lead, and they're more likely to have low levels of education or be in menial jobs. Doesn't mean that ALL are, and doesn't mean that ALL doctors etc. are better equipped, but that's why I said "if there was some way to ensure impartiality"

What could these people know that sam and greg don't? they are given the same information :/

Oh come on. Are you suggesting that your hairdresser has the same capacity to evaluate the statements of victims / witnesses / accused as a trained mental health professional or sociologist? What a bizarre thought. Why does anyone bother getting any education at all? That's like asking what your doctor could possibly know that your next door neighbour doesn't because "after all, they have Google!"

[Niamh.]

I agree a panel of experts would be better but you'd have to pay them really, you're not going to get a load of experts just volunteering their time either so probably not possible unless they pump more money in really

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Not very realistic but that doesn't mean it wouldnt be better.



There are many people in various jobs who are indeed capable. There are also many who lap up tabloid headlines and will be easily swayed by a lawyer's rhetoric. I'm not really interested in playing the "everyone in the world is actually intelligent and rational and how dare anyone suggest otherwise!" game. Some people are thick and easily lead, and they're more likely to have low levels of education or be in menial jobs. Doesn't mean that ALL are, and doesn't mean that ALL doctors etc. are better equipped, but that's why I said "if there was some way to ensure impartiality"



Oh come on. Are you suggesting that your hairdresser has the same capacity to evaluate the statements of victims / witnesses / accused as a trained mental health professional or sociologist? What a bizarre thought. Why does anyone bother getting any education at all? That's like asking what your doctor could possibly know that your next door neighbour doesn't because "after all, they have Google!"

Explain to me why it would be better, actually don't bother because in your next highlighted comment you admit that not all doctors would be better equipped... wow that was a quick turn around wasn't it?

This meritocratic system based on academic superiority is flawed, as that is not what a democratic system is based on. I'm not playing any game I agree some people are as thick as lead, they may speak arbitrarily against someone due to their job or the clothes they wear that is true across the spectrum of society.

Yes that's what I'm saying, it's not a bizarre concept.. a jury of peers has been the cornerstone of our criminal justice system for centuries. It wasn't my idea.
People get an education to ensure competency in their specified area of expertise, it doesn't elevate you to consummate guru.

[Northern Monkey]

Well you do have to wonder what evidence all these #ibelieveher armchair feminists have that the jury didn’t?
Also why would she go home with a bunch of rugby players?
What did she want from them?
Obviously i know no more than anyone else but these are important questions.

[Marsh.]

But a doctor or mental health professional IS better equipped. When it comes to a he said/she said case anyway.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Northern Monkey

Well you do have to wonder what evidence all these #ibelieveher armchair feminists have that the jury didn’t?
Also why would she go home with a bunch of rugby players?
What did she want from them?
Obviously i know no more than anyone else but these are important questions.

1.8% rape conviction rate for rapes in NI. So 98.2% of women are lying? Yeah seems likely.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Explain to me why it would be better, actually don't bother because in your next highlighted comment you admit that not all doctors would be better equipped... wow that was a quick turn around wasn't it?

This meritocratic system based on academic superiority is flawed, as that is not what a democratic system is based on. I'm not playing any game I agree some people are as thick as lead, they may speak arbitrarily against someone due to their job or the clothes they wear that is true across the spectrum of society.

Yes that's what I'm saying, it's not a bizarre concept.. a jury of peers has been the cornerstone of our criminal justice system for centuries. It wasn't my idea.
People get an education to ensure competency in their specified area of expertise, it doesn't elevate you to consummate guru.

Which would be fine if I'd suggested "a jury of random peers except they have to have a degree" but that's not what I said at all . It would be a jury of professionals with some insight into the area of each specific case; so for example, doctors, psychiatrists and mental health professionals in a rape case... forensic psychologists and criminologists in a murder trial... economists and business analysts in large fraud cases, systems analysts and web experts in hacking cases, etc. etc.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Which would be fine if I'd suggested "a jury of random peers except they have to have a degree" but that's not what I said at all . It would be a jury of professionals with some insight into the area of each specific case; so for example, doctors, psychiatrists and mental health professionals in a rape case... forensic psychologists and criminologists in a murder trial... economists and business analysts in large fraud cases, systems analysts and web experts in hacking cases, etc. etc.

But this doesn't work for the classist agenda.

[Vicky.]

Its not just feminists saying they believe her NM.

OJ was acquitted, was he innocent?

Whatever her reasons for going back with them, that does not mean she cannot be raped. Hell even if she went back wanting to have a huge gangbang, that does not mean they cannot rape her.

[Niamh.]

Yep ^^^

Also she didn't just go home with the 3 guys, there was a group went back including other women, presumably for a house party

[thesheriff443]

Most rapes are committed by people the victim knows.

But it's woman who should be looking at these rape cases and asking themselves do they want to risk being raped by going home with a stranger and if it did happen the likely chance of a conviction is so low

[Niamh.]

Imagine if we were talking about murder, "People should just make sure not to get murdered because the conviction rates are bad"