Family & Relationships1 min ago
Why Is This?
29 Answers
http://
Is it simply reporting is better or people feel more confident in reporting?
Or is there something else that has changed recently in the UK that is the reason?
Is it simply reporting is better or people feel more confident in reporting?
Or is there something else that has changed recently in the UK that is the reason?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by youngmafbog. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Agreed, although it's hard to see what can be done to increase the conviction rate. Juries can't convict unless the evidence presented is convincing enough, sadly. Also, of course, Juries can't explain the reasoning behind their decisions in specific cases, so it might well be that there is an (accidental) bias against the complainant that increases the likelihood of a "Not guilty" verdict regardless of the evidence.
Still, some progress can be made. Better and more complete forensic analysis, where possible, can be highly convincing and is certainly more reliable in general than eyewitness testimony, so would be harder for a jury to reject as compelling evidence.
Still, some progress can be made. Better and more complete forensic analysis, where possible, can be highly convincing and is certainly more reliable in general than eyewitness testimony, so would be harder for a jury to reject as compelling evidence.
So perhaps that is it HC, Partners/ex-partners 55%. With the chnage in law to include 'in marrage' perhaps that has resulted in higher figures.
Jim, not sure what forensics will ever be able to do for the 'I said no' 'No you didnt'. Unless filmed (or we are ever to read memories) I dont think this one will ever be solved. Which is a shame for both the accused and the accuser depending on who is lying.
Jim, not sure what forensics will ever be able to do for the 'I said no' 'No you didnt'. Unless filmed (or we are ever to read memories) I dont think this one will ever be solved. Which is a shame for both the accused and the accuser depending on who is lying.
There are certainly cases where better forensics can make a particular difference, although I don't want to say too much since I may as well declare a possible conflict of interest: I served recently as juror in a rape trial, and therefore can't really discuss the specifics of the case, or the reason for the verdict (which was "not proven").
What I will say, since this information was presented in open court, was that the police gathered various items involved in the incident including clothes belonging to the complainant, and passed these on to the Procurator Fiscal's office, but these clothes never underwent forensic analysis.
What I will say, since this information was presented in open court, was that the police gathered various items involved in the incident including clothes belonging to the complainant, and passed these on to the Procurator Fiscal's office, but these clothes never underwent forensic analysis.
