Friday, 6 June 2014

Why shouldn't underwear be taken into account in rape cases where relevant?

From 3:23 " ... bearing in mind the type of underwear you were wearing at the time ... "
This is of course cosmetic and is not relevant to deciding whether a woman was "asking for it".
If the victim were wearing anti-rape pants , then it would indicate that she was definitely not "asking for it".
If she were wearing these, then I really think the defence would be perfectly entitled to invite the jury to conclude that the victim was indeed "asking for it".

Measures aimed at addressing drop in rape convictions launched

The key measures include:

Ensuring that prosecutions focus more clearly on what the law says about consent to sex in complicated cases.

Can consent be given at the time of intercourse and then subsequently withdrawn if the man does not call the slut the next morning or if she later discovers he was not as wealthy and well-born as he presented himself to be? What if the slut thought she was having sex with the owner of a Bentley when in fact he was only the chauffeur? Can she retrospectively withdraw consent and accuse him of rape when any objective bystander observing them while they were having intercourse would have thought that consent or even obvious enthusiasm was present?
Reviewing the operation of specialist Crown Prosecution Service teams and the barristers they use to present evidence to juries in court.

What on earth does this mean?

Monitoring police decisions when they decide to take no further action on some allegations, including analysing why and how that decision was authorised.

If there is no other evidence other than the unsupported testimony of the complainant, then of course all charges should be dropped.  

No comments: