Quizzes & Puzzles1 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 --
//I don't think feminists, will be happy until any charge of rape automatically results in a guilty verdict. Of course we must make it as difficult as possible for the rapist to defend himself.//
@8:56
Now where does that post say "man haters"? Anyone? We know where the obfuscation and deliberate misinterpretation emanates do we not.
@8:56
Now where does that post say "man haters"? Anyone? We know where the obfuscation and deliberate misinterpretation emanates do we not.
“Police don't usually release the name of the accused until forensics have been done and the guilt of the man is certain.”
Is the guilt of the man certain once the “forensics have been done”? Don’t know what we’re discussing here, then, because the trial can, presumably, be dispensed with entirely. Just a sentencing exercise is all that’s needed. Of course in rape cases the question of consent is key and that cannot be proved (or disproved) by forensics.
This is a very tricky topic. Barmaid has very usefully explained how evidence (and sometimes cross-examination) given by children and young persons can be recorded and played to the court. Whilst courts have an objective to “achieve the best evidence” they also have a more overriding objective to see that justice is done. Having a witness’s evidence tested by live cross-examination is key to that and I would suggest that there is a considerable difference when considering how the evidence from a child might be provided and tested and how that of a grown woman is treated. I personally think there are sufficient safeguards in place to protect rape victims in court. The Special Measures mentioned by Barmaid include the prohibition of the defendant – even if he is unrepresented – from cross-examining the alleged victim in person.
Rape is a particularly difficult offence to prosecute because of the critical element of consent and because there are rarely any witnesses other than the two participants. Apart from forensics – which rarely prove the offence alone – the prosecution must usually rely on the evidence of the alleged victim. But I think that removing the evidential procedure from the courtroom will necessarily weaken the defendant’s chances of discrediting that evidence and that is a key feature of the adversarial justice system operated in the UK.
Is the guilt of the man certain once the “forensics have been done”? Don’t know what we’re discussing here, then, because the trial can, presumably, be dispensed with entirely. Just a sentencing exercise is all that’s needed. Of course in rape cases the question of consent is key and that cannot be proved (or disproved) by forensics.
This is a very tricky topic. Barmaid has very usefully explained how evidence (and sometimes cross-examination) given by children and young persons can be recorded and played to the court. Whilst courts have an objective to “achieve the best evidence” they also have a more overriding objective to see that justice is done. Having a witness’s evidence tested by live cross-examination is key to that and I would suggest that there is a considerable difference when considering how the evidence from a child might be provided and tested and how that of a grown woman is treated. I personally think there are sufficient safeguards in place to protect rape victims in court. The Special Measures mentioned by Barmaid include the prohibition of the defendant – even if he is unrepresented – from cross-examining the alleged victim in person.
Rape is a particularly difficult offence to prosecute because of the critical element of consent and because there are rarely any witnesses other than the two participants. Apart from forensics – which rarely prove the offence alone – the prosecution must usually rely on the evidence of the alleged victim. But I think that removing the evidential procedure from the courtroom will necessarily weaken the defendant’s chances of discrediting that evidence and that is a key feature of the adversarial justice system operated in the UK.
Togo - //The first mention of " man haters" was @ 9:50 when the term was deviously introduced to smear another poster who had alluded to no such thing.
The term was not 'deviously introduced' at all.
I used the term because I offered that that is what was inferred by divebuddy's post, and added that I may be misunderstanding his view.
I did not infer or state that feminists are man haters - merely that that was an implied inference.
So if you are going to malign me, please make sure of your facts first.
Thanks.
The term was not 'deviously introduced' at all.
I used the term because I offered that that is what was inferred by divebuddy's post, and added that I may be misunderstanding his view.
I did not infer or state that feminists are man haters - merely that that was an implied inference.
So if you are going to malign me, please make sure of your facts first.
Thanks.
New Judge - I do hope that we can return to the thread and debate the issue properly.
We lost a thread yesterday, and another last week because of exactly the same spiralling of topic and onto sniping, and defending - I freely admit my part in the second, but that would not occur without the first.
Hopefully the next post will be on-message and we can move on from there, without losing this thread as well.
We lost a thread yesterday, and another last week because of exactly the same spiralling of topic and onto sniping, and defending - I freely admit my part in the second, but that would not occur without the first.
Hopefully the next post will be on-message and we can move on from there, without losing this thread as well.
//I don't think feminists, will be happy until any charge of rape automatically results in a guilty verdict. Of course we must make it as difficult as possible for the rapist to defend himself.//8.56.
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. 9.50
Now lets try again , where does Buddy say, or his tone imply, that he is of the mind that feminists are "man haters". A phrase introduced at 9.50 with the convenient get out, "unless I am misinterpreting what he is saying". Of course the follow up -"is that 'feminists' are man haters and if accused must automatically be guilty" could imply that if feminists are accused of being man haters........they must automatically be guilty. Laughable on all counts.
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. 9.50
Now lets try again , where does Buddy say, or his tone imply, that he is of the mind that feminists are "man haters". A phrase introduced at 9.50 with the convenient get out, "unless I am misinterpreting what he is saying". Of course the follow up -"is that 'feminists' are man haters and if accused must automatically be guilty" could imply that if feminists are accused of being man haters........they must automatically be guilty. Laughable on all counts.
Phew what a relief. Now Deskdiary, I cannot agree with the "victim" being allowed to submit recorded testimony with no recourse to challenge of the "evidence" or sequence of events. That said I feel that children should be a special consideration in such distressing events. There is also a case for medical intervention, if the accuser is deemed to be unfit for whatever reason, and video testimony is recommended by qualified health experts. Off course this may only open up a further can of worms, in that would the accused or their defence maintain that, if the victim was unfit to testify they must be unfit to make meaningful and rational accusations.
Togo - //I cannot agree with the "victim" being allowed to submit recorded testimony with no recourse to challenge of the "evidence" or sequence of events. //
Why is the word victim in inverted commas in your post?
// That said I feel that children should be a special consideration in such distressing events. There is also a case for medical intervention, if the accuser is deemed to be unfit for whatever reason, and video testimony is recommended by qualified health experts. //
Absolutely, and I am sure such procedures are in place for those exact reasons.
// Off course this may only open up a further can of worms, in that would the accused or their defence maintain that, if the victim was unfit to testify they must be unfit to make meaningful and rational accusations. //
That is a possibility, given that a defence counsel will be looking for any and every way to exploit any perceived weakness in the prosecution case.
That said, it could be a case of chasing the quarry over a cliff - if the defence avers that the victim is unable to testify in court for valid reasons, but infers that it indicates weakness in the case, that could in turn be exploited by the prosecution to point out that the defence is being callous and manipulative by using this tactic.
It's days like this I'm glad I'm not a barrister!
Why is the word victim in inverted commas in your post?
// That said I feel that children should be a special consideration in such distressing events. There is also a case for medical intervention, if the accuser is deemed to be unfit for whatever reason, and video testimony is recommended by qualified health experts. //
Absolutely, and I am sure such procedures are in place for those exact reasons.
// Off course this may only open up a further can of worms, in that would the accused or their defence maintain that, if the victim was unfit to testify they must be unfit to make meaningful and rational accusations. //
That is a possibility, given that a defence counsel will be looking for any and every way to exploit any perceived weakness in the prosecution case.
That said, it could be a case of chasing the quarry over a cliff - if the defence avers that the victim is unable to testify in court for valid reasons, but infers that it indicates weakness in the case, that could in turn be exploited by the prosecution to point out that the defence is being callous and manipulative by using this tactic.
It's days like this I'm glad I'm not a barrister!
andy-hughes Togo - //I cannot agree with the "victim" being allowed to submit recorded testimony with no recourse to challenge of the "evidence" or sequence of events. //
Why is the word victim in inverted commas in your post?
I presume for the same reason they're referred to as 'alleged victims', andy.
Why is the word victim in inverted commas in your post?
I presume for the same reason they're referred to as 'alleged victims', andy.
The Lord Chief Justice has clarified the position - it looks as if the MofJ and Liz Truss have misunderstood what has been proposed - and he wishes to correct misleading impressions in the press.
https:/
https:/
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.