Letters to the editor


——————————————————————————–

23 June 2006

Some interesting letters in The Times today concerning the whinging about how some women are – gasp, horror, etc – being questioned about their private lives when they’ve gone and accused some guy of rape (see this post.) Naturally there is one stupid bitch who whines about how the conviction rate has gone down despite “reported” rapes going up, but like a typical fembot she refuses to accept that many women make false accusations for revenge, attention of just for the hell of it (she may not be a feminist, but she works for Victim Support, so just like a feminist it’s in her interests to ensure an endless supply of women martyred by the tyranny of teh patriarcheeeh!)

Here are a couple of the sensible letters:

Sir, You report that “complainants regard the use of sexual history evidence in trials as unjust and an invasion of privacy”. An untruthful allegation of rape may result in no less an invasion of the defendant’s privacy at his trial. There has to be a fair balance struck. Why should juries be prevented from knowing that a man or woman has many sexual partners and is thus, as defined by the New Oxford Dictionary of English, promiscuous?

STANLEY BEST
Swansea

Sir, One of the problems of Section 41 is that in the case of R v A (2002) the House of Lords ruled that it is incompatible with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights because it renders as inadmissible evidence which might be relevant to the issue of consent on a rape charge.

The section is obtuse and regularly invoked and, to the shame of a country in which the accused is supposed to be innocent until proved guilty, regularly inhibits the proper defences of men who face considerable jail terms if found guilty. The root of the problem is that this Government seems bent on increasing conviction rates, at whatever cost to fairness, in an attempt to appear tough on crime and win votes.

Where consent is in issue it is inevitably going to be difficult to make a jury sure that A is guilty simply because B says so.

ROBERT PAWSON
Pump Court Chambers
Winchester

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 5:40 PM
——————————————————————————–

%d bloggers like this: