Should Alleged Victims Of Rape Be Allowed To Trestify Via Pre-Recorded Video?

[Deskdiary]

Is Sarah Vine correct that this is worrying?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4337254/Law-brand-men-rapists-SARAH-VINE.html

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.

[andy-hughes]

Naomi - // andy-hughes, //unless I am misinterpreting what he [divebuddy] is saying - is that 'feminists' are man-haters//

I think a lot of them are. //

Again I am surprised at your stereotyping - I would suggest that not all feminists are man-haters in the same way that not all men are rapists - even accused ones.

[naomi24]

Jim, if the rest aren't vocal, how would you know which are man-haters and which are not?

[naomi24]

andy-hughes, and I didn't suggest that ALL feminists are man-haters either. Just a lot of them.

[jim360]

Perhaps it's more just about who you pay more attention to. It's not difficult to find chilling examples of "man-hating feminism", just as it's easy to find rampant misogyny, homophobia, racism or whatever the hell else you decide to look for. But such people don't represent anyone other than themselves.

[GenuineclAss]

I have more male friends than female. The difference being that my friends always protected me from men like that. I never told my friends about my attacker because they would have been arrested themselves for what they would have done to him.

[naomi24]

They think they do, Jim. Every time I hear the 'sisterhood' thing that they tend to embrace it makes me shudder.

[andy-hughes]

Naomi - //andy-hughes, and I didn't suggest that ALL feminists are man-haters either. Just a lot of them. //

And I suggest that that is lazy stereotyping and most untypical of you.

[naomi24]

andy-hughes, you'd be wrong then. A lot of feminists are man-haters. No stereotyping there.

[Deskdiary]

"It is up to his defence to prove the he could not have committed the crime"

No it isn't.

[jim360]

Well, it's best to challenge such views as you see them for sure. But leave it to those people to think that they represent everyone, rather than thinking it yourself.

Returning to the topic, it is pretty clear that a lot of likely rapists end up being acquitted because the evidence is either too light for a jury to convict or because the evidence is too light for the case to make it to court in the first place. It's natural, for such a crime, to seek any way to try and improve the chances that rapists are brought to justice. Sadly the process is, I think, too important to compromise. Not sure if this does that or not but yes the ability to defend yourself is vital no matter the crime or the eventual verdict.

[naomi24]

jim, //Well, it's best to challenge such views as you see them for sure. But leave it to those people to think that they represent everyone, rather than thinking it yourself. //

I don't know what you're talking about. Can you rephrase that?

[GenuineclAss]

Okay Deskdiary, then what do you suggest his defence lawyer should do to prove him innocent - apart from lying to influence the jury, as I've previously stated?

[jim360]

Context:

"Such people [eg man-hating feminists] don't represent anyone other than themselves."

"They think they do."

Well, they don't. So (a) challenge them in that, and (b) don't think it yourself.

Rather a lot more feminists don't hate men than do. But you knew that already, I'm sure.

[Togo]

// It is up to his defence to prove that he could not have committed the crime//

You have it there in a nutshell. Not up to the prosecution to prove guilt, but up to the accused to prove innocence. Which has been he aim of some "organisations" all along.

[mikey4444]

Deskdiary is correct here...its up to the prosecution to prove that a crime has been committed, by the person in the dock.

But the best method of defence is often to attack, and if the main, and often the only witness, is not able to be cross-examined, then a proper defence can't be mounted.

[naomi24]

Jim, that still makes no sense. Obviously I would challenge them – so why on earth would I think it myself?

//Rather a lot more feminists don't hate men than do.//

How do you know?

[jim360]

Also, db is technically correct. There's no obligation on the defendant to defend himself. It's just that he has the right to, and should have the right to do that as thoroughly as possible.

As you say, the problem then lies in how to defend oneself from a rape accusation? If there's no doubt that the sexual side of things happened, then that leaves only the issue of consent and reasonable belief. The opposite of not consenting is passionate and enthusiastic consent -- and if a woman is apparently throwing herself all over you, doesn't that also give reason to believe that she's consenting?

So I guess that doesn't actually leave much room for any defence other than "yeah she was so totally gagging for it", or some variation of that.

Perhaps the definition of rape in law needs to be changed, to remove this line of argument. Certainly there's a need to understand consent better.

[Togo]

//then what do you suggest his defence lawyer should do to prove him innocent - apart from lying to influence the jury, as I've previously stated? //

Perhaps a defence lawyer would prove that the accuser was lying. Or is that not a possibility to consider?

[jim360]

If you are busy saying that a lot of feminists hate men then it's pretty clear that you think the most vocal misandrists out there represent "a lot". They don't. So don't think that they do. They are a minority. A loud, vocal, visible minority. But a minority.

Clear now?

[naomi24]

Jim, is your claim an assumption, a preferred view of the world of feminism, or fact supported by evidence?