< 1/3 of young men prosecuted for rape are convicted in England and Wales

[Jolly_Penguin]

Perhaps the courts should take the lead of the Scottish system, and allow a verdict of 'Not proven' - This has similar consequences for the accused to a 'Not guilty' verdict, but with a strong undertone of "We cannot prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, but we think he probably did it".

No penalty is imposed by the law on a person found 'Not proven', but the message that verdict sends to the community is rather different from that sent by a 'Not guilty' verdict.

You have both the "not proven" and also the "not guilty" verdict int he system? Interesting idea.

 

[bilby]

Perhaps the courts should take the lead of the Scottish system, and allow a verdict of 'Not proven' - This has similar consequences for the accused to a 'Not guilty' verdict, but with a strong undertone of "We cannot prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, but we think he probably did it".

No penalty is imposed by the law on a person found 'Not proven', but the message that verdict sends to the community is rather different from that sent by a 'Not guilty' verdict.

You have both the "not proven" and also the "not guilty" verdict int he system? Interesting idea.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_proven

It's an historical accident really; Scottish juries used to pass a verdict of 'proven' or 'not proven' on the evidence, not the defendant. The judge would then look at the evidence that was proven, and adjudge the guilt or innocence of the accused.

When the system began to allow juries to decide the guilt of the accused, the verdict of 'Proven' was replaced by 'Guilty'; but both 'Not guilty' and 'Not proven' remained as options for acquittal, and juries historically have used 'Not proven' to signal that they would find the defendant guilty if a 'preponderance of evidence' standard applied, but are bound by 'reasonable doubt' to acquit.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

This says to me that the prosecutors there are bringing cases they shouldn't. If a prosecutor doesn't expect to win they shouldn't bring it in the first place. And if they truly can't predict which ones they'll win there's something seriously wrong with how we decide guilt.

 

[Tigers!]

Try this link instead
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/sep/23/revealed-less-than-a-third-of-young-men-prosecuted-for-are-convicted

 

[Deborah]

&lt; 1/3 of young men prosecuted for rape are convicted in England and Wales

@Loren It cannot necessarily be foreseen how well or badly an accused will conduct his case.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[bilby]

This says to me that the prosecutors there are bringing cases they shouldn't. If a prosecutor doesn't expect to win they shouldn't bring it in the first place. And if they truly can't predict which ones they'll win there's something seriously wrong with how we decide guilt.

The CPS is desperately underfunded, and as a result often loses cases on technicalities due to inadequate preparation for trial. They also fail to pursue cases due to insufficient funding and/or insufficient manpower to prepare a brief.

The English legal system is a terrible mess, as are most English institutions after decades of funding cuts.

 

[laughing dog]

This says to me that the prosecutors there are bringing cases they shouldn't. If a prosecutor doesn't expect to win they shouldn't bring it in the first place.

When prosecutors do not take cases to trial that they believe they cannot win, they are also sending a message to future criminals that they don't have to worry about being caught.

And if they truly can't predict which ones they'll win there's something seriously wrong with how we decide guilt.

Or how we choose prosecutors.

 

[Toni]

This says to me that the prosecutors there are bringing cases they shouldn't. If a prosecutor doesn't expect to win they shouldn't bring it in the first place.

When prosecutors do not take cases to trial that they believe they cannot win, they are also sending a message to future criminals that they don't have to worry about being caught.

And if they truly can't predict which ones they'll win there's something seriously wrong with how we decide guilt.

Or how we choose prosecutors.

It also tells victims there is no reason to report their rapes.

 

[Lion IRC]

Perhaps the courts should take the lead of the Scottish system, and allow a verdict of 'Not proven' - This has similar consequences for the accused to a 'Not guilty' verdict, but with a strong undertone of "We cannot prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, but we think he probably did it".

No penalty is imposed by the law on a person found 'Not proven', but the message that verdict sends to the community is rather different from that sent by a 'Not guilty' verdict.

You have both the "not proven" and also the "not guilty" verdict int he system? Interesting idea.

A better system is where victims can freely go and make sworn statements to the police and stipulate that they don't want to press charges or proceed to give evidence in court.

That way allegations can be formally documented at the time of the event (rather than decades later) and any potential evidence can be preserved notwithstanding that it remains untested. Faded memories, unclear recollection of events, uncanny coincidental timing of the accusation with monumentous contemporary political events...

If ten women made reports against Brett Cosby or Donald Weinstein, then the police would be able to confirm that it wasn't the first time ever that such accusations had been made.

Imagine how many rapes could have been prevented if the police had interviewed suspected rapists and alerted them to the fact that their "inappropriate behaviour" was officially on the radar screen.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

This says to me that the prosecutors there are bringing cases they shouldn't. If a prosecutor doesn't expect to win they shouldn't bring it in the first place.

When prosecutors do not take cases to trial that they believe they cannot win, they are also sending a message to future criminals that they don't have to worry about being caught.

And if they truly can't predict which ones they'll win there's something seriously wrong with how we decide guilt.

Or how we choose prosecutors.

When prosecutors take cases to trial they don't expect to win they are saying that even the innocent should be punished.

 

[Toni]

When prosecutors do not take cases to trial that they believe they cannot win, they are also sending a message to future criminals that they don't have to worry about being caught.
Or how we choose prosecutors.

When prosecutors take cases to trial they don't expect to win they are saying that even the innocent should be punished.

How is that?

Prosecutors taking a case to trial when they believe that the accused is innocent is different than taking a case to trial that they don't know if they have enough evidence to convict.

I agree that prosecutors should not proceed to trial unless they have enough evidence to convict. But as the article I posted upthread was about a prosecutor who refused to bring cases to trial, even with confessions, DNA evidence, and eye witnesses. Even when the victim was underage and there was zero doubt that the men she accused of raping her had indeed had sexual intercourse with her because there was ample DNA evidence that they had intercourse with her and given her age and theirs, it was definitely at a minimum statutory rape.

 

[laughing dog]

When prosecutors do not take cases to trial that they believe they cannot win, they are also sending a message to future criminals that they don't have to worry about being caught.
Or how we choose prosecutors.

When prosecutors take cases to trial they don't expect to win they are saying that even the innocent should be punished.

That is completely baseless. Just because the DA thinks the case has less than a x% chance (whatever the DA baseline is) of winning does not indicate that the alleged perp is innocent. Your claim is illogical.

Clearly the is a tradeoff when to prosecute, but by not prosecuting cases that have lower chances of winning, the DA is sending a clear message to potential criminals about their chances of going to jail.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

And by prosecuting these low probability cases, they’d be sending a message to other criminals about their chances of going to jail, because they’d need to drop some cases with better chances of victory in order to do that.

 

[Toni]

And by prosecuting these low probability cases, they’d be sending a message to other criminals about their chances of going to jail, because they’d need to drop some cases with better chances of victory in order to do that.

I think you are trying so hard to justify not prosecuting rape cases that you are imputing far greater planning and reasoning skills to criminals than is actually warranted.

 

[laughing dog]

And by prosecuting these low probability cases, they’d be sending a message to other criminals about their chances of going to jail, because they’d need to drop some cases with better chances of victory in order to do that.

That assumes the only cases the DA prosecutes are rape cases.

 

[bilby]

The UK doesn't have District Attorneys. The OP is about England and Wales, where cases are prosecuted (or not) by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). CPS decisions are rarely newsworthy, and rarely political; Crown Prosecutors are appointed experts, not elected politicians.

The System in England and Wales isn't even the same as the system in Scotland, despite all three being part of the UK. It really couldn't be much more different from the US system in a HUGE number of respects, so commentary about the English and Welsh system, based only on experience or knowledge of the US system, is impossible.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

And by prosecuting these low probability cases, they’d be sending a message to other criminals about their chances of going to jail, because they’d need to drop some cases with better chances of victory in order to do that.

That assumes the only cases the DA prosecutes are rape cases.

No, it assumes the exact opposite - that they have a wide range of cases to prosecute and not enough time in the day to prosecute all of them.

 

[Toni]

And by prosecuting these low probability cases, they’d be sending a message to other criminals about their chances of going to jail, because they’d need to drop some cases with better chances of victory in order to do that.

That assumes the only cases the DA prosecutes are rape cases.

No, it assumes the exact opposite - that they have a wide range of cases to prosecute and not enough time in the day to prosecute all of them.

So that’s their justification. I understand: low resources, wanting to make the biggest impact. The way it plays out in the minds of rape in the minds of rape victims is: why bother reporting? And to the guys who see no problem with just doing what their penis says: no big deal. Even the police and courts don’t care.

 

[laughing dog]

And by prosecuting these low probability cases, they’d be sending a message to other criminals about their chances of going to jail, because they’d need to drop some cases with better chances of victory in order to do that.

That assumes the only cases the DA prosecutes are rape cases.

No, it assumes the exact opposite - that they have a wide range of cases to prosecute and not enough time in the day to prosecute all of them.

OK, so some criminal who commits a lower impact crime may get a walk.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Technically speaking, it would more likely mean that criminal gets a walk and the rapist gets a walk.

If it didn’t mean that, then the low conviction rate in rape cases wouldn’t be a factor in the first place and the question would be moot.