Investigating Sexual Abuse/assualt Allegations

[cameronmorgan187]

In light of all the recent activities regarding celebrities/personalities being accused and prosecuted for their recent crimes, what checks are made by the police and other agencies to make sure that people aren't being falsely accused. Where there is absolutely proof and evidence that's fine, but when it may just boil down to one persons word against the other, what factors are used to decide to prosecute.

All victims of sexual crimes need the help, support and security to come forward and help prosecute those who are guilty, but what happens if someone is being falsely accused for reasons of revenge, malice or just plain spite, how can the police be sure when this happens.

I'm really interested in this area as I start a psychology course in September in Bristol.

Any thoughts or comments will be much appreciated.

Thanks

Cameron

[hc4361]

False accusers have been imprisoned recently but it must be extremely difficult especially if the accuser knows the accused very well.

However, it is not up to the police to decide who is lying. Their role is to gather evidence and let the CPS decide if there is enough evidence to prosecute; it must also be in the public interest to prosecute.

If the defendant continues to plead not guilty the final decision will be with the magistrates or jury.

[LazyGun]

Given the nature of sexual abuse allegations, the potential for false allegations is obviously something that needs to be borne in mind when investigating - Especially when it comes to allegations of a historical nature, involving a personality or celebrity, where false allegations may be made because of expectation of gain, or simply faulty or imagined recollection.

Experienced investigators will be aware of the risk. Certainly when it comes to allegations of historical abuse, those investigating will be testing the credibllity of the complainant and the defendant.So in the likely absence of forensic evidence, they will be reliant upon forensic questioning I imagine.

All the best evidence to date suggests that false allegations are actually very rare, regardless of the status of the accused assailant, so its my understanding that the default position the police now adopt is to accept such as provisionally true - not something that has always been the case in the past...

[wolf63]

Unless there is physical evidence of an attack or abuse I would think that the Police and prosecution services would have a horribly difficult job in proving/disproving that a crime has been committed.

Given your choice of degree you will have an interest in human nature ~ and will be, or become, aware of the stuff that makes us tick.

There have been false allegations of rape on an ongoing basis in the press/courts, the reasons that people do this are beyond my understanding.

In the current celebrities investigation there will be people who are trying to remember incidents that happened many years ago ~ their story will never be fully accurate.

There may also be people taking advantage of the situation due to attention seeking.

And, being female, I am also aware of how a teenage girl may/could take advantage of a celebrity ~ where no crime has occurred but, for whatever reason, has decided to get involved in this investigation by reporting the incident.

Unfortunately, there will be some very genuine cases and, hopefully, the Police are able to investigate and prosecute the guilty parties (if they are still alive).

I find cat psychology much simpler to understand ~ if I do something to one of my cats that they do not like they bite me. Simple!


:-)


I hope that some of the above makes some sense ~ my brain seems to be on strike today

[cameronmorgan187]

Thank you for your thoughts. Very interesting.

[pixie373]

There has to be "enough" evidence to convict someone. If it literally boils down to one person's word against another's, i can't see how that would be enough to convict. It must be especially difficult when years have gone past, but still needs to be investigated if there is an allegation. I don't think the "accused's" name should be released until there is a conviction though.

[Peter Pedant]

First of all Cameron well done for getting your exams
and getting a place at Bristol

I spent happy weeks in St Michael's Hill above the old Children's Hospital.
(1970)

No lack of posters but short on fact - perhaps you should be doing Law.

Do depressed old men confess to crimes they havent committed ? yes - an obvious one is the depressed prime mininster in 1822 confessing to the felonies of the Bishop of Clodagh (I'll let you look that one up) before his suicide ( Castlereagh )

Now for sexual crimes - is corroborating evidence required ?
Well no - not for twenty years.
Sex is often done in private so the dropping of that rule has led to more successful prosecutions - there are other posts on this

and so is it possible or has it occurred that people have gone to prison on these historical cases ..... ?

however against this, in law there is a evidential device/thng called the similar evidence rule - which allows one under certain circumstances to combine various witnesses evidence to make a cohesive whole. (The lawyers call this 'if you dont have evidence you are allowed to make it up - rule)

You in your course will also have learnt about False Memories - an interesting branch of psychology

and finally - you will have noticed that of the 800 of so (lots and lots) of allegations against Jimmy S - 400 are taken to be true (wh is still lots) which implies that 400 are sort of below par or standard.

Do people make bogus claims especially when there is money to be had or money available to heal their grievous psychological wounds ?
Yup they sure do: look at the WTC - embezzlement of charity funds ('the stupidest thing I ever did ' ) and masquerading as a rescuer.

However against this all - I thought stu hall was innocent - until he stood up and said OK fair cop I did it all...... oops

Good Luck in the course

[FredPuli43]

Good luck with the course. The police have trained officers to deal with sexual assault claims. They will be sympathetic to complainants but do not lose common sense. They will gently investigate and if it appears that the complainant is lying will establish that. But times have changed. Nearly all complainants raise a triable issue. The truly malicious or false accusation is a great rarity; it may be that recollection of events differ and the woman thinks she never gave any sign of consent and the man thinks differently, but that does not make the complaint false or mean there is no triable issue.

In the past, as PP says, the requirement for corroboration, that is independent evidence that the crime has been committed, meant that many a man was not even charged and many were charged but acquitted. To give you an idea of how stupid the rule was, the fact that the woman was seen in a distressed state and complaining of being raped minutes before was not seen as corroborative. One judge described the rule as being so difficult as to be all but incomprehensible to a jury.