Home  Forums |
|
|
|
|
Topic History of: Rape - let's increase convictions!
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)
|
Innocent Accused |
JK2006 wrote:
The other problem is - when it is revealed your accusers are drug addict alcoholics with criminal records who are compulsive liars, the prosecution says it was your abuse that made them that way.
You can't win.
Well you can win,but only if you can show from records their bad behavior started from before your 'alleged' meeting/incident with them.
I believe the Criminal Justice act 2003 severely limits what documents you can present in court to the jury.All about keeping the pantomime rolling on,got to keep those pedo headlines alive,don't ever let the public know the truth. |
|
JK2006 |
The other problem is - when it is revealed your accusers are drug addict alcoholics with criminal records who are compulsive liars, the prosecution says it was your abuse that made them that way.
You can't win. |
|
Innocent Accused |
JC wrote:
Past history shouldn't really come into it. There's no reason why someone with a dodgy past cannot be victim of a crime themselves. That said, if their history involves being a habitual liar then that might have a bearing. Cases should be decided on evidence and facts relating to whatever the charge may be. If there is no evidence of an actual crime, other than someone's word, then there should be no case to answer. That's what the law says. Unfortunately, the law is no longer properly practiced or upheld in this country.
Sometimes the only evidence we have of character is their past dealings with the law.If you remove past history all you're left with is who impresses the jury the most.
I'm told that about half of all sex cases brought to trial end up in convictions.But how many of them are based on 'one word against another?' This basically boils down to who is the best actor,not facts
My false accuser had been involved in a sexual incident at school a few years before my arrival in the house.She had encouraged boys with some reckless behavior first.Also she had a history of bad behavior.This was witnessed by relevant school/social services/police records both before,and after my stay.
If you check,I think some/all of JKs accusers had a history of behavior problems too.
Sometimes a person's past is the only clue we have.If you make an accusation of such a serious nature then surely the jury has a right to know? But unfortunately in many cases they do not,the law changed in 2003 to limit the facts you could divulge. |
|
JC |
Past history shouldn't really come into it. There's no reason why someone with a dodgy past cannot be victim of a crime themselves. That said, if their history involves being a habitual liar then that might have a bearing. Cases should be decided on evidence and facts relating to whatever the charge may be. If there is no evidence of an actual crime, other than someone's word, then there should be no case to answer. That's what the law says. Unfortunately, the law is no longer properly practiced or upheld in this country. |
|
Innocent Accused |
Emma Bee wrote:
The best approach would be to put more effort into establishing the actual facts and then, if the evidence shows the need for a prosecution, proceed with the case. It is a major mistake to make an increase in convictions a priority without looking at each case on it's own individual merit.
On the news, Harriet Harman came across as extremely ignorant.
The CPS charged me without even checking out the past history of my false accuser.The mere word of a person is nearly always enough,even if that person is not of good character. |
|
|
|
