News0 min ago
Should Alleged Victims Of Rape Be Allowed To Trestify Via Pre-Recorded Video?
Is Sarah Vine correct that this is worrying?
http://
If a man is accused of rape, personally I think it is absolutely correct that the person doing the accusing should be cross-examined live, but with strong direction from the judge to the defence barrister concerning the tone of the examination.
Allowing a recording is prejudicial to the accused.
http://
If a man is accused of rape, personally I think it is absolutely correct that the person doing the accusing should be cross-examined live, but with strong direction from the judge to the defence barrister concerning the tone of the examination.
Allowing a recording is prejudicial to the accused.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Deskdiary. 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.
-- answer removed --
it may be a game changer...
I suppose we wait and see
it depends on whether you think too many people ( men ) are being convicted when 'they didnt'
or if you think too many ( men ) 'are getting away with it'
about video evidence live
a judge said - this was meant to be once in a while but now we see it every day ....
and yes yesterday I popped down to the GMC for GMC v Dr Hannah Ryan ( can reported as the High Court said GMC was NOT a court of record [ AG ex p GMC v BBC 1999] the ebola case and yes I spent most of the morning listening to a witness live in personam who was obviously lying. [ and no this is not actionable in libel as a case cannot beget a case and I had never seen her before ]
so I am not keen on video links but I realise that time marches on
I suppose we wait and see
it depends on whether you think too many people ( men ) are being convicted when 'they didnt'
or if you think too many ( men ) 'are getting away with it'
about video evidence live
a judge said - this was meant to be once in a while but now we see it every day ....
and yes yesterday I popped down to the GMC for GMC v Dr Hannah Ryan ( can reported as the High Court said GMC was NOT a court of record [ AG ex p GMC v BBC 1999] the ebola case and yes I spent most of the morning listening to a witness live in personam who was obviously lying. [ and no this is not actionable in libel as a case cannot beget a case and I had never seen her before ]
so I am not keen on video links but I realise that time marches on
In this country we have the adversarial system where everybody in the witness box is challenged and often intimidated by counsel. We all know the ordeal rape victims suffer at the hands of defence council, who are only doing their duty to their clients.
In other countries, such as France they have an investigative or inquisitorial system where such confrontations are not neeeded - perhaps we need to adopt this system just for rape cases?
In other countries, such as France they have an investigative or inquisitorial system where such confrontations are not neeeded - perhaps we need to adopt this system just for rape cases?
As usual, the DM headline isn't quite what Vine said. The headline is this ::::
"Law that will brand all men rapists: SARAH VINE says new plans to allow victims to testify via video are deeply worrying"
But what she actually said was :::::
"The proposal, announced earlier this week by the Department of Justice, to allow alleged victims of rape to testify via pre-recorded video — without having to face cross-examination — is deeply worrying"
People have been giving evidence at trials by a video link for ages, but this new proposal that the evidence should be pre-recorded seems fatally flawed. All evidence should be capable of being challenged, by the prosecution and the defence, but hos is that possible when the evidence is in the form of a film?
"Law that will brand all men rapists: SARAH VINE says new plans to allow victims to testify via video are deeply worrying"
But what she actually said was :::::
"The proposal, announced earlier this week by the Department of Justice, to allow alleged victims of rape to testify via pre-recorded video — without having to face cross-examination — is deeply worrying"
People have been giving evidence at trials by a video link for ages, but this new proposal that the evidence should be pre-recorded seems fatally flawed. All evidence should be capable of being challenged, by the prosecution and the defence, but hos is that possible when the evidence is in the form of a film?
yes, chiaoscuro, I think we should do more of that. I also think we should do something about the whole "consent" issue, eg women crying rape days after the event because they had regrets. Real cases of rape should be obvious but there are a lot of grey areas where the defendant is more or less guilty until proven innocent or the case collapses. EG the whole, can't consent whilst p155ed, cobblers. Some of these are doing no favours to the real cases that may arise in the future.
As she said, the is about pre-recorded videos.
https:/
https:/
Maybe if HE wasn't in court for the victims testimony it would be easier. He could watch her via video link, then be returned to the court when she had left.
I was told that my attacker would not be there and was thrown off track giving evidence by the sight of him, sitting there, looking bored and totally without remorse.
I think that evidence should be given face-to-face unless the victim was physically abused to the point of hospitalisation, or has severe mental issues.
I was told that my attacker would not be there and was thrown off track giving evidence by the sight of him, sitting there, looking bored and totally without remorse.
I think that evidence should be given face-to-face unless the victim was physically abused to the point of hospitalisation, or has severe mental issues.
Speaking to the few people I know who have been on juries where they have used video links, they considered that even the live video link lost the person accusing credibility.
As such, it's not going to improve conviction rates, which is the main problem with this kind of case.
It's good to try and limit the harm done through the process, but it might not really improve the situation overall.
As such, it's not going to improve conviction rates, which is the main problem with this kind of case.
It's good to try and limit the harm done through the process, but it might not really improve the situation overall.
"I don't think feminists, will be happy until any charge of rape automatically results in a guilty verdict. "
Pretty sure that you don't understand feminism then.
However I'm not sure I like this move. As it is, rape cases -- or any other case for that matter -- are very difficult for all concerned, but as a matter of justice we have to treat the accused as innocent and the victim as "only" a complainant, until a verdict is reached. That has to mean allowing every chance for the accused to put forward a fair defence.
Problem is that the line of defence is very often some variation of "she's basically a *** who threw herself at me" -- and the problem is that enough people believe that to be true for them to assume many, most or even almost all rape cases that don't also come with GBH or something fall into that category.
Pretty sure that you don't understand feminism then.
However I'm not sure I like this move. As it is, rape cases -- or any other case for that matter -- are very difficult for all concerned, but as a matter of justice we have to treat the accused as innocent and the victim as "only" a complainant, until a verdict is reached. That has to mean allowing every chance for the accused to put forward a fair defence.
Problem is that the line of defence is very often some variation of "she's basically a *** who threw herself at me" -- and the problem is that enough people believe that to be true for them to assume many, most or even almost all rape cases that don't also come with GBH or something fall into that category.
Naomi - //I agree with divebuddy at 08:56. //
I am surprised.
The tone of Divebuddy's post - unless I am misinterpreting what he is saying - is that 'feminists' are man-haters, and if accused, must automatically be guilty.
This flies in the face of legal process, the right to a fair trial, and the concept of being innocent until proven guilty - which is not the same thing at all.
I am surprised.
The tone of Divebuddy's post - unless I am misinterpreting what he is saying - is that 'feminists' are man-haters, and if accused, must automatically be guilty.
This flies in the face of legal process, the right to a fair trial, and the concept of being innocent until proven guilty - which is not the same thing at all.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank2 mins ago
Crosswords2 mins ago
The Prince Of Darkness To Be U S...
News4 mins ago
Crosswords16 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.