Still too many non-rapists getting away with rape, apparantly


20 June 2006

Leading in neatly from the last post, it appears that rape trial changes are ‘not working’!

Legislation to stop rape complainants from being unfairly questioned about their sexual history in court is not working, a report has concluded.

The changes introduced in 2000 meant evidence of past behaviour could not be put before a jury in England and Wales unless relevant to the case.

The Home Office study said the rules were frequently “ignored or avoided”.

It said there had been “no discernible effect” on reducing the number of failed prosecutions.

Oh no! It appears that men who are not guilty of rape are still getting away with being not guilty of rape!!

Solicitor General Mike O’Brien said he had written to the Criminal Law Rules Procedure Committee asking them to tighten up the rules. He said defence lawyers should have written permission to question a victim’s sexual history but that this was sometimes ignored.

“Some judges are allowing late application or questions raised during the trial … and faced with a defendant risking a long prison term, decides that in the interests of a fair trial he should allow previous history to be raised,” he said.

Well, somehow, I would have thought it was good that a judge should allow questions pertinent to the case when a defendant may be facing a “long prison term”, and that possibly invading an accusing woman’s privacy is worth it if it may prevent the possibility of an innocent man going away for five, ten or even more years.

Yet this dickhead thinks it’s terrible! He’s denouncing judges for being concerned at uncovering the facts in trials that have many years of a man’s freedom at stake and often have a lack of physical evidence.

It said video interviews made with rape victims at the time of their initial complaint could be shown in court and suggested expert witnesses be called to testify about the trauma suffered.

In other words, have some feminist bought in to talk about how awful being ray-ped is, and how terrible it makes women feeeh-hul, so therefore the alleged rapist must be guilty and should go away for life.

It was, of course, our Law Lords who, last month, ruled that women are entitled to an ex-husband’s future earnings for life. The Conservatives and Labour are fighting over who is nicest to whore single mothers and who can give more and more taxpayers money to women for childcare and maternity leave. Now the Home Office are desperately trying to find new ways of removing what little rights men accused of rape have to ensure more of us can go to prison, even if it’s just on the say-so of some whining woman with a grudge or a desire for some attention.

This country is a true Matriarchy.

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 9:32 PM

%d bloggers like this: