What do you think of these new changes to the law in rape trials?

In England and Wales, alleged rape victims will no longer have to face scrutiny or cross-examination in court. Instead, the justice secretary Elizabeth 'Liz' Truss has set out sweeping reforms which will allow all alleged sex abuse victims to pre-record all their testimony before a trial, and to exempt them from having to attend court proceedings themselves.

Ms Truss said pilot schemes showed pre-recorded interviews led to "a higher level of early guilty pleas", and that as such, these new laws will come into force across the nation in September. In her Sunday Times interview, she said "It reduces the level of trauma for the victim. I want to see that being the standard offer in those cases and that will give more victims confidence to come forward."

Ms Truss also said that the pre-recorded interviews will provide "much clearer ground rules" to counsel, adding that "At the moment, prior sexual history can only be asked about in exceptional circumstances, but sometimes questions can be asked that verge on that territory. If a question is asked that is inadmissible, that can be cut out of the tape by the judge."

But several argue that this will have a huge impact on those people who are falsely accused of rape. James Conte, founder of accused. me. uk said: "If you are a wholly innocent victim of someone trying to frame you, you will not welcome these changes because they will increase the chances that you will be wrongfully convicted." Zoe Gascoyne, chairwoman of the Criminal Law Solicitors Association, told the newspaper that taped interviews before a trial would not take into account real-time developments, and said: "This may be a step too far."

So what's your opinion of these new changes to the law? How much easier do you think that this will make it to accuse people of rape, and to get them convicted? And do you think that this will be a good thing or a bad thing?

  • This is Perfect!
    Vote A
  • This is Good
    Vote B
  • This is OK
    Vote C
  • This is Bad
    Vote D
  • This is Terrible!
    Vote E
  • Who cares?
    Vote F
  • Other/see results
    Vote G
Select a gender to cast your vote:
I'm a GirlI'm a Guy
You know, this IS a Trending & News question, as opposed to a Sexual Behavior question. Any chance of getting it moved?
And what's with that image? How on Earth is that picture in any way relevant?


Most Helpful Girl

  • How dare they miss out cross-examination? It's the most important thing to be done to distinguish false rape accusations and the real ones. Body language is something to watch out for, and the exemption of these victims in attending trials would be a huge loss.

    It's also not equal, to say, because for a sound judgment to be done and a sound verdict to be heard, an assessment must be done by examining both parties. The absence of the accuser will mean that testimonies won't be trustworthy as they seem and the absence thereof is blatant injustice for the part of the defendant.

    Not only that, but recordings can be manipulated and fabricated, given the technology we have now. A face-to-face encounter will always count and is something technology can't beat in terms of sentimental value.


Most Helpful Guy

  • I would say "this is okay". I can understand both sides but overall, I don't believe the people who claim this will be used for false rape accusations have good arguments on their side. If a rape accusation is truly made up, the lie is usually detected sooner or later. There are all kinds of things that play into this: alibi, motive etc.. And in a democratic justice system, the rule is always "innocent until proven guilty". So even if the judge has a feeling that something is rotten about the defendant (and believes a false rape accusation), that's not enough to prosecute him. The court must PROVE that he did it. So, saying something like "you don't have an alibi" won't help. That's why the word "innocent" is actually never used in court trials. It's ALWAYS "guilty" or "not guilty". Even if you are ruled "not guilty", doesn't make you innocent (there's a slight but important difference). It just means that the court didn't manage to show that you're guilty of having committed a crime.
    What this means is that the hurdle to prosecute somebody has been deliberately set high by the people who created this western, democratic justice system. Nobody gets thrown in jail but because I say he did something. If I can't prove it 100%, he will be free and I might even face charges myself for slander.

    On the other hand, we have the dignity of the (potential) victim. Nobody should ever be humiliated in front of 50 people with a cross-examination. Having experienced a rape is already traumatizing enough, we don't need to traumatize victims a second time. And previous sexual history truly has NOTHING to do with a rape case. Just because a woman has been promiscuous in the past doesn't make her less credible. These things are personal and can easily be abused by a judge who interprets them in his own moralistic way. Therefore, they shouldn't even be asked.


Have an opinion?

What Girls Said 19

  • I can see that their original intent is good, but they really don't think about the consequences. If they're going to have something like this they NEED more protections of the accused.

    • no its not good

    • This is the feminization of the western civilization, where men are treated as second-class citizens and every man is guilty until proven innocent..

  • When I was reading this, the first thing that came to mind was the fact that: it will give advantage to those women who falsely accuse men of rape. While the law has its benefits, you have to consider the disadvantages it poses too.

    • Under Sharia Law a woman accusing a man of rape needs four male eyewitnesses. It sounds like American internet guys would love that.

    • Show All
    • @jacquesvol Yes, I know, I asked it. And no, we're NOT in Saudi Arabia either, which begs the question of why you felt the need to bring that bit about Sharia Law up in the first place. Well?

    • Because people here prefer laws that make it difficult to bring rapists to trial and Sharia Law is an example of it.

  • Somebody below brought up Brock Turner, and my thinking on him is that it is repulsive to me, because the "trauma" of being held accountable for his actions should not EVER outweigh the cost of the trauma to true victims. You think a woman who is raped loses value? Absolutely. PTSD, inability to sleep, difficulties with work... real victims suffer extraordinary loss of quality of life. Brock Turner had a choice, victims do not. He leveraged his quality of life when he chose his actions. I'd much prefer to see him be accountable by any means necessary.

    This new idea does have good intentions, but unfortunately sometimes the best intentions do the most damage. Having good intentions is not sufficient.

    This is going to open more false allegations, because it is a shield. Meant to help those who need it, but unfortunately shielding those who shouldn't have it also. Maybe there needs to be a burden of proof before this is kicked in, like some semblance of preponderance, then this could be utilized. Not right out of the gate.

  • " Zoe Gascoyne, chairwoman of the Criminal Law Solicitors Association, told the newspaper that taped interviews before a trial would not take into account real-time developments, and said: "This may be a step too far."

    Like, I think that's one of the more compelling reasons to oppose this. Reducing trauma for the (alleged) victim is noble and stuff, but the accused person shouldn't have the deck stacked against them. Innocent until proven guilty.

    Any reasonable person doesn't want actual rapists to be acquitted. But any reasonable person also shouldn't want innocent people to get convicted, especially for the sake of "increasing the conviction percentage" for these kind of crimes, or any for that matter. What good is increased convictions if the people going to jail are innocent?

    And like, are these changes only for rape cases? What about theft or arson? It seems to me that this shouldn't be allowed, just because it clearly says "this person should be believed more than others". And that doesn't seem justified, especially if the goal is to make the right decision and not just a politically popular one.

  • I agree with it. I watched a documentary and it took you through what's involved in a rape trial and I have so much respect and admiration for victims of rape who had the courage to stand up in front of everyone and relive that awful night. I also could understand why so many rape victims don't come forward due to such an intense trial like that. False rape claims are an extremely tiny fraction of the actual rape claims so I support this new law 100%.

    • Actually, according to England & Wales' official HMIC 2014 stats, 33% of all rape allegations were false. And police rape investigators themselves estimate that between 50% and 70% of all rape allegations are false. But for some time now, a full, unprompted admission of fabrication by the claimant has been required for the police to cite any rape claim as 'false'. And even with this absurdly high bar, the Ministry of Justice's evidence review in 2014 found that over 10% of rape allegations were false, by the full, unprompted admissions of fabrication from the alleged 'victims'. That's not a tiny fraction. And if they don't even have to face scrutiny or interrogation, then how many more will decide that they can pull off the act and make it all up?

    • Show All
    • I've seen first hand how rape can destroy someone's life. If there is a claim, it should be fully investigated. If it's false, it will be proven false. The majority aren't false and the rapists need to punished. End of story.

    • @ ShaunaM95 Odd, I have seen a false accusation destroy one of the nicest guys I ever knew, and he never met the girl! She was upset he didn’t notice her! Agree “fully investigated” and with right to face the accuser "End of story”.

  • This is stupid, hopefully they didn't do this in my country (majority of rape accusation are false, it wouldn't be great for all those innocent people)

  • feel bad for the innocent chaps

    • I feel bad for the victims. There are many rape victims and you too probably know some victims.

    • Show All
    • @HaveQuestions and before the DA decides, the local cops decide If they send the file to the DA (unless the victim has a lawyer who can make himself heard.
      Many complaints never make it beyond the first cop.

    • @jacquesvol Great point: "Many complaints never make it beyond the first cop"

  • I think this is a positive thing, as long as the victim will still be required to answer followup questions outside the courtroom.

    • And for all the dudes who are riled up over this: there are male rape victims too. They also deserve the right to make their case without being scrutinized and hassled in a traumatizing environment. Think about that before you turn this into a women-vs-men issue.

    • I support the accused's rights to question the accuser whether they are a man or a woman.

    • @Thisperson98 I support that right too, just not necessarily in person or in a courtroom. If there is significant evidence that the victim might be lying, then I might support bringing them into the courtroom.

  • Liz Truss has no idea what she is doing. This will make it so one sided.

    • The victim will, no doubt, be coached in exactly what to say. Like reading from a script. I doubt whether there will be any opportunity to challenge this statement.

      Look at the state of the UK prison service under the Tories and Liz Truss. Nothing but a fucking joke, if it was not so serious.

    • Show All
    • @cth96190 Wow, sounds like Nottinghamshire county needs to be avoided by travelers even passing through—an accent, misuse of the proper UK English word might get you into trouble there--thanks for the warning—

    • I also read about a new law against grooming youngsters. Now we will all be too scared to even talk to a child. It will even fuck up GAG!! No under 18's here now!!

  • Sounds like a good proposal. I don't know what the benefit of cross-examining victims is?
    I think attorneys should be allowed to ask questions but I don't see why that has to be done on the day in court

    • The benefit of cross examination is to help determine if the accuser is lying.

    • Show All
    • @Thisperson98 ya how so?

      "You generally don't have to share evidence ahead of time if the sole purpose is for impeachment.
      Also another point is the body language of the witness. You can't really determine the body language of the accuser when they aren't there."

      You made two points, body language and witness impeachment and I had already addressed them earlier. What more can I say

    • The jury determines how good the evidence is. And body language is a big factor. This is why the rehearse the testimony.
      Plus like I said the defendant can look at the body language to figure out what to probe. For example, if the defendant notices that the accuser shows signs of lying at a particle part of the testimony, that is where they are going to probe.

  • I don't really see a problem with it unless I'm missing something...

    • It's effectively assuming that every single person who claims to be a rape victim must inherently be telling the truth, that every single person accused of rape must inherently be guilty. And these laws are being introduced with the explicitly stated intent of getting every single person who gets accused of rape convicted as a rapist, and doing so by making it all but impossible for any lawyer to mount a legal defense case for any accused rapist in a court of law. Do you see how this might be problematic?

    • Show All
    • @Thisperson98 There were other candidates.

    • @jacquesvol not really. In America there is really only 2 candidates.

  • I keep saying that as long as people continue to have premarital sex and watch porn it's not going to get any better. It will get worse, and this is just the tip of the iceberg. Where people is thinking 'OMG, it's bad'. This is nothing compared what will be in the future. However, as much as I'm glad that they are taking consideration of the emotional aspects of the victims, sadly, yes, it does make it easier to accuse anybody of rape. People get raped in relationships without even knowing it. Or even speak about it. They just let it happen because their body wants to and the feeling of shame if they don't put out in relationships. I always say nobody can force you to do something you don't want to do. I say that they're going about it the wrong way. But this issue should be a warning to both men and women. That is how serious it's getting.

    • Premarital sex is not to blame for rape.. wtf?

    • Show All
    • So... you're saying not to take you at face value?

    • @Sara413 What I'm saying is not take anything for just what you see on the surface. Even if you can't trust me. I rather know that the person is using common sense and properly evaluating the situation than just trust me just because I said so. Besides, I don't need to be falsely accused by somebody who doesn't even want to be around me. I want people to think. Not have somebody else think for them.

  • It sounds really cool.

  • while I can absolutely see how it will reduce trauma on victims, it is unclear how it will "increase the chances that you will be wrongfully convicted" that seems like a leap. So I think its a good thing

    • Because it is impossible to question the accuser if they aren't there.

    • Show All
    • You thought I was apologizing? Lmao

  • I don't think this is really necessary, because there are already rape shield laws (at least in the US) to protect the victims. I don't think it would harm defendants that much though. They will have to rely on forensic evidence and other witnesses. A lot of cross examination of victims is just defense attorneys bullying them anyway.

    • Cross examination is a fundamental human right, because it is a part of due process.

  • The thing is only 2-6% of allegations are fake. It's so stupid for men to sit there and use this as a way to put off rape. No lies about it you just don't want to hear it

    • The percentage of false allegations is irrelevant, because the issue here is that people are losing their right to defend themselves without due process.

    • Show All
    • I'm not sure what your trying to say but I'm already aware of the fact that women can rape men. I think it's just very underreported because of the reaction

    • What I am saying is 40% of rape accusations are false based upon statistical data that we have that is also been corroberated by people who deal with these accusations. By pretending this is not the case, which this law is doing and which your argument attempts to do, you are allowing for innocent people to have there lives destroyed for something they never did. As for men being raped, we do not acknowledge this happening, I brought it up because we both know that if it was a man making the accusation against a woman he would be ignored outright. Thus the law is bias and is designed to feed off of that bias.

  • It would not be constitutional to do this in the US, so it would never happen here. But I am interested in seeing how it works out in the UK.

    • It is actually against EU resolutions.

    • Show All
    • I question whether this change to court procedure would also be unconstitutional in Britain.
      As far back as Magna Carta (1215) there was a constitutional guarantee that an accused would face their accuser in a public court.
      This change is a clear violation of something that has been written into the foundation of the British political and judicial system since 1215.

    • @cth96190 Now I feel stupid for forgetting Magna Carta. I wrote a whole long peace on it several early manuscripts of several versions of Magna Carta were on display at the Huntington Library. I love that they wrote rights for Fish Wyres in public waterways.

  • it makes me so mad to read some of these comments. I understand falsely accusing someone is evil. But the majority of rapes cases are in fact rape. The first thought shouldn't be to protect the alleged rapists. The first thing should be protecting the women. It's sick how many of you can't see that.

    Go ahead and down vote me.

    And PS, don't put yourself in the position to be accused of rape and you have nothing to worry about. Be smart and actually have some common sense.

    • "I don't care about human rights, I only care about people's feelings"
      A nice summary of your comment.

    • Show All
    • @raspberry0416 why do you say that? Because I support due process?

    • @raspberry0416 No, you just showed yourself to be immature and petulant, and to have the mentality characteristic of a playground bully- you're allowed to hit everyone else, but if anyone even stands up to you and you get to much as a scratch on your knuckles, you go crying to the teacher about how you've been beaten up, demanding that the person be expelled for bruising your knuckles or for breaking your nails with their face. It's pathetic.

  • "alleged rape victims will no longer have to face scrutiny or cross-examination in court. Instead, the justice secretary Elizabeth 'Liz' Truss has set out sweeping reforms which will allow all alleged sex abuse victims to pre-record all their testimony before a trial, and to exempt them from having to attend court proceedings themselves."
    I only read this much, but I agreed with what I read.

    • So you support going against international law?

    • Show All
    • @Anonymous- If your father or brother got beaten up, came to you crying with fear in their eyes and their face all mashed up, telling you that someone sat on top of them and pounded their face into the pavement, and they were in the hospital with a broken nose and bruised skull, and they could hardly talk cause of the pain, and every time they did talk and feel the pain it gave them flashbacks- how would you feel about another alleged 'assault victim' who appeared uninjured, yet demanded full exemption from a doctor's examination and vetoed any surveillance footage being examined as evidence, on the grounds of them being "too traumatic" and "humiliating" for them? Who then went on to say that this wasn't enough for them, and also demanded that they be exempted from any form of scrutiny or cross-examination in court- demanding that they be permitted to simply pre-record all testimony before a trial, and be exempted from having to attend court proceedings themselves?

    • ... and what if that person, who demanded all of that and got it all handed to them, was the one who was pressing assault charges against your father or your brother? If they had a history of unprovoked violence, of lashing out at people and getting them falsely convicted of assaulting him/her before, but the lawyer of your father/brother, the alleged assaulter, was expressly forbidden from calling him/her out on her history of violence or of dishonesty on the stand, under the spurious argument that such a line of questioning was "unnecessary, irrelevant and trauma-inducing"... Would that still strike you as being fair? Would you still agree with it all, if you were to experience this issue on a personal level from the other perspective? Or would you be more inclined to understand?

What Guys Said 52

  • An inherently dangerous precedent. Not just in cases of actual rape, but the inherent slippery slope of what this will mean for other laws in which a man's innocent intentions can be grossly misconstrued - such as anti-stalking laws.

    Jaquesvol here mentioned how Eric Brockman got off for a blatant act of violent rape. All because he was a cash cow for the sports program. Institutional greed - and a father willing to engage in blackmail and bribery for corrupt reasons - got a rapist off the hook.

    But at the same time, a former coworker of mine who was really dumb tried to get an ex to give him his stuff back if she would not take him back. She wouldn't. And then, he walked around in public near her one day without even realizing she was there. She decided to abuse the restraining order. But because he was a dumb nobody denied disability coverage he obviously qualified for, he wasn't important enough for anyone to stand up for his rights. They threw him away for longer than some rapists are thrown away for. Which makes me suspect that she only feigned feeling endangered by him, to cover up her having pawned the stuff off or given it to Goodwill.

    He was annoying, yes. But to call him a "threat" to anyone was a bit of a stretch.

    The point I'm trying to make here, is that we've allowed ourselves to put a price tag on justice. And invent excuses for markdowns. Which only makes it that much easier that some men will go to prison for much longer than they deserve - assuming they even deserve it at all!

    Meanwhile, men who deserve it for much longer can get off the hook completely, if they can demonstrate their arbitrary value to some community program to somehow make them not be expendable.

    Also, the value of a woman's word ceases to be about justice or the pursuit of objectivity - which society abandons faith in. It instead becomes a game of whether aiding her or the man constitutes better monetary strategery from a schematic point of view.

    If the man is not advantageous, the woman need not be truthful. He can be sacrificed on the alter of self-righteousness. There is no fear of God. If the man is advantageous, then a truthful woman's quest is immaterial. For she is not monetarily profitable to lend audience to. Such is the nature of greed and vanity.

  • This is terrible. In short it means that every man is guilty, thats what they all but stated, that it means that the man does not get a fair trial, that as they stated as new developments unfold they can't be applied to the case thus removing vital evidence, that it presumes the innocence of the plaintiff and the guilt of the accused (its innocent till proven guilty for a reason) and since its taped as they just stated they can delete what ever parts they don't like, their will be no evidence showing inconsistencies nor will you be able to do a character study of the plantiff to see if their might not be some character flaws that might suggest she is making things up. Its guilty and you can't be proven innocent. Thats not justice thats a kangaroo court and its despicable. This idea that women are always victims and men are always victimizers is not only sexist but inaccurate. I wonder if the genders are reversed they will care so much about the "victim"? Will they just take his word for it, after all he is the "victim"? Its idiotic, they are presuming she is a victim before it can be determined whether or not she is the victim or he is. Its despicable and is just one more tool that can be used to destroy another persons life. I cannot even begin to describe my disgust.

  • Whats is most important here is that due process of law is upheld, that there is a presumption of innocence of the accused until proven otherwise, and that it is the duty of the accuser to present a case and present evidence of guilt. This is a legal principle that is already weak, and weaker in some areas than others. Rape cases are an area where it is among the weakest of actual crimes which have a victim and a perpetrator, and this law has the potential to make it weaker.

    On the other hand, perhaps better way to work toward the truth in court is more through prepared documents and less through personal inquisition. Not everyone is good at presenting a case in that environment, but it's not just rape victims. Victims and the accused in all crimes need to be given the same rights. What I really think is wrong about this law, is that it makes different rules about rape cases than other court cases, and presumes a special sort of trauma in rape victims that no one else is given liberty to have.

    I personally would find it incredibly traumatic to be falsely accused of rape. Someone you trusted is now trying to get you sent to prison, to ruin your life! Seems just as bad as being raped. If the accused is expected to face an inquisition in court but the alleged victim is not, that is very unfair. It is very unfair to assume that one party is traumatized and needs protected while the other is not. It is an insult to both parties.

    Not everyone handles any adversity in the same way, and the worst we can do is make assumptions and different rules for different sorts of people as to how they should be treated. The best we could do would be to tailor the way each accuser and defendant in each crime gets to present their case, to be the way most likely to get the truth from that individual person. The next best we could do would be to give everyone on all sides of all crimes the same rights and expectations, and that is exactly what we have been trying (and failing miserably) to do in the legal system since the invention of modern western law.

  • Hey guys. Do you remember Brian Banks?
    He was an aspiring football star he could have made it BIG in the NFL.

    Well his whole life was ruined when some rotten piece of trash named Wanneta Gibson falsely accused him of rape.

    Banks was forced to spend 5 years in prison and his football dreams were over. He did get a spot with the Falcons 7 years later, but by then he was well out of practice and was dropped from the team.

    In the meantime Wanetta got a jackpot $1.5 million from suing the school district for allowing Banks to rape her.

    So she ruined this kid's life, and what was her punishment? Absolutely nothing!

    So fuck everyone who thinks this is a good idea!

    Rotten pieces of human trash will falsely accuse people of rape and ruin their lives in a heartbeat. All rape victims should be held under 100% scrutiny for a claim as serious and life changing as this.

    I'd rather have a million criminals walk free then have a single innocent man thrown in jail.

  • The US went through this debate back in the 70s (I think). There was an attempt to increase the number of women who reported rape. Part of that was to remove some of the stigma through a public campaign, and rules regarding the way women were treated by police, medical personnel, etc.

    There was also an attempt similar to this one. I don't recall anything about being taped though. I think one suggestion was for the woman to be in a separate room and her testimony viewed though closed circuit TV. That way she would not have to confront the guy face to face.

    However, as I remember it, much of this was overruled by the courts. It stems from this part of the US Constitution. The pertinent part is in CAPS.

    "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; TO BE CONFRONTED WITH THE WITNESSES AGAINST HIM; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."

    I'm going by 40 year old memory, but I think the court interpreted this as meaning the accused has a right to be confronted by their accuser in person.

    I'm not saying I agree with this. But that's how I remember it.

  • Nope nope nope nope nope nope nope. Stop giving people power without any defense on the guys part. How the fuck am i supposed to proof i didn't rape her?

    Lets take this to the extreme and i go on a date with a pretty girl and we end up sleeping in a hotel. It is a shared bed, but since we both aren't ready all clothes are kept on and nothing else happened under the sheets. We simply fall asleep.

    Alright so keep that very innocent scenario in mind and lets assume the calls rape on me after we had a massive argument over the hotel bill and as it turns out she didn't have a very nice personality after all. (Yes yes, i know scenario is totally bullshit but lets go with me here ok? :P).

    How do i defend myself against the above? Being called a rapist after she consented is bad enough because any girl can do this at any time after you actually had sex but this goes a step further.

    Lets see if i can actually defend myself in our fictional scenario.
    - I demand a doctors exam to proof she has none of my semen in her. Oh wait, no crotch exam shit...
    - Well i demand to ask her some hard questions so its obvious she's lying. Wait what you mean its a recording? I don't get to see her? What is this?
    - Alright lets find a hole in her stor... wait what? Your telling me her story is perfect because she had hours to do it together with a trainer lawer?
    - Can't the hotel proof that the sheets are clean or something? Right, it was a good hotel they have cleaned the sheets by now.
    - I call upon an eye witness! Seems like there where no creepy stalkers to call upon that day, dammit billy why not this time!

    Seems like i will have to force my future girlfriend to have a I concent Sawno has sex with me tatoo on her belly.

    • Exactly. Your fictional scenario may resonate the false rape accusations happening in real life.

  • I think it's a bad idea. It will make it a lot easier for someone to be falsely convicted. The goal shouldn't just be "a higher level of early guilty pleas". The goal should be a fail trial. Taking away a person's freedom and irreversibly damaging their reputation is not something to be taken lightly. And enacting this change robs them of their ability to truly confront their accuser.

    If this is going to happen then I agree with Iraqveteran666. The person being accused should have the same option afforded to them. They should be able to plan out a meticulously rehearsed video that paints them in the best possible light and then sit at home while the lawyers duke it out.

    • You two seem to think of it as a civil trial "if one party gets that right then so should the other" but it's not!
      In criminal trials there aren't two equal parties. If you are being trialed for rape you are not being sued by the victim, you're being sued by the state and the state gets no benefit from not cross-examining defendants.
      The DA's office already reviewed the evidence and not only do they think you're guilty, they also think they have enough to possibly get a guilty conviction.

    • @nalaa
      I don't think either party should have that right.

  • I said D, I have a friend who is currently being accused of rape and is going to get kicked out of his school despite his innocence because of the way school's in the US are set up. There needs to be some way to do this better than we are, but this is not the way to do so.

  • So I can hire some actress in front of a camera and pretty much nail an innocent man to the wall? As long as I have something plausible, some alcohol and a bit of witness seeing two of them together and it would be over?

    Cross examination is used to dig into someone to make sure it's not a lie, a rehearsal or a fabrication. Events can be murky. Not all of them are as straight forward. Maybe a couple had consensual sex with alcohol and the girl just turn hostile later and wanted revenge? The camera only testimony would make her case exceeding hard to argue because you can not cross examine her testimony. She could have a script and read off it in a rehearsal.

    Justice is not a witch hunt. In a witch hunt, it doesn't matter, you are guilty because someone accuse you and you don't get to face your accuser or defend yourself. You either plea guilty or die.

    This is a witch hunt method. The person doing this represent Justice.

  • https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CMSGmhzWwAADquN.jpg

    We need to reform how women are punished for making false accusations though, too. They destroy the credibility of real victims and make it that much harder for real rapists to be brought to justice, not to mention ruining innocent men's lives.

    Everybody wants to make it easier to put real rapists in prison, well, that starts with throwing false accusers into the same prison cell, so they can learn the difference.

    Sadly, most women think like this:

    • You do realize it is already illegal in every jurisdiction in western societies to file a false report with police, right? This is a thing... and when it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that an accuser is lying, they will be convicted with that charge. In fact, innocent people have been charged with filing a false report of sexual assault who've later been proven to have told the truth...


    • @Sara413 You do realize women statistically get away with WAY more legally than men right?

    • @Sara413 I know that the penalty is a slap on the wrist, it's not treated the same as Perjury, it's fucking nothing. Sometimes the judge lets them off with a warning. It's definitely not the same penalty that their falsely accused victim would have faced if they'd been found guilty.

      So no, actually, it's not already good enough. It needs to be drastically reformed.

  • Prior sexual history does NEVER justify rape
    The victim should NEVER be humiliated by a defense attorney.

    • Even if the victim isn't actually a victim, but has made it all up?

    • Show All
    • @jacquesvol you're 100% right

    • "But with the new changes they're implementing, even the police investigators will no longer be permitted to interrogate or cross-examine the alleged"

      Um... no. This has nothing to do with the investigative process and everything to do with how alleged victims are treated in court...

      Far too often the defense in these cases antagonize and humiliate alleged victims, or they get them emotionally worked up and try to confuse them into saying things that can be presented as inconsistencies. That is what this is protecting them from.

  • There are plenty of malicious women out there , that would happily destroy a man's life , knowing full well she herself is unlikely to face any form of sanction , even if it was proven she was a liar.

    However a real rapist , that is convicted surely with DNA proof , deserves to be swiftly & heavily punished , you violate someone else , then you have forfeited ALL your human rights in my own view !! Also , men that rape & sexually assault women , give the already demonized man an even worse name.

  • Although the USA may get some bad taste in people's mouths especially about our societal views, I and a lot of people are grateful that the accused have rights to face their accuser. It's written into our bill of rights in the constitution. I believe it's the 5th amendment, if I'm wrong it's somewhere between the 4th and 6th. These are to protect the accused and improve upon the innocent until proven guilty. This is in the U. K. so there are different rights that may be left out that the USA has.

  • This is a bad idea, as with a lot of laws that want to keep the alleged victim out of court.
    It makes it all to easy, to convict someone innocent.

    I do not defend those that rape, they need to be convicted. But I have seen what happens, when someone innocent was accused of rape.

    The law is supposed to be blind and equal, not stacked in favor of one over the other.

    The accused has the right to stand before their accuser, in a court of law. Someone can put on a great act in front of a camera, it is another thing to have to look in the faces of others and lie.

  • Great, let's make the likelihood of a false accusation more likely. If this shit is allowed where the victim doesn't want to turn up because of trauma, then the accused doesn't have to turn up because of embarrassment.

    We must not assume all those who are coming forward with rape as truth tellers, however we must not assume they are lying either and we must do whatever we can to extract reasonable evidence that the rape took place.

    We need more education and encouragement for them to come forward AS EARLY AS POSSIBLE, if you get raped and you go to the police the next day then your word is MUCH stronger than going to them ten years later, also there is most likely DNA evidence on you which they can use.

  • The justice system is supposed to protect the accused from improper imprisonment, and not the victim and victims feeling in recounting the facts as they know them. If you can eliminate the right of the accused to confront their accuser, what other reasons can you justify to take away other measures of fairness... don't answer - slippery slope to hell

  • i can see the merits of not asking rape victims to be cross-examined in public. i could imagine it being a really hard situation to try and stay cool, calm, and collected while a lawyer basically tries to discredit you

    i'm for whatever does the best job of prosecuted these cases and getting a true result... so if this practice will do that then i'm all for it

  • It could be a good thing but only if they amend the law to punish lies with equal force. A women that is later found not guilty and has lost say 2 years of his life in prison because she, the accuser wrongfully accused him... she should spend his 2 years for the years he can never get back

    --> Without a law convicted liars... this amendment is silly. Cross examination is important no matter what. That would not be a fair trial

    • That's very dangerous I think. Just because someone is found not guilty doesn't mean you lied. If you're gonna enforce that no one is ever gonna report rape because it's a difficult crime to proof and most trials don't end a guilty verdict.
      False allegations are punishable already, including prison sentences, but it is, rightfully so, a hard crime to proof

    • Show All
    • @Sara413 you don't understand, no amount of money can fix a false rape conviction.

    • @Sara413 But Sara... you continue to miss one major aspect of this whole topic

      This revolves around the accuser. If the accuser says it was not rape, all charges dropped. If the accuser says it was person A or B, then the state will formulate a trial on that person. Rape cases are unique in the sense that the accuser must have been present during the scene of the crime... otherwise, they can't point the finger...

      --> so far you have not addressed how to deal with the accuser wrongly putting someone in jail aside from letting them off scott free and demanding the state to pay for their mistakes... mmmmm I dunno there...

  • What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty? So Due process isn't enough in rape cases to get convictions? Proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is too hard to do? I know if somebody tried to rape me, there would be plenty of evidence: bruises, bite marks and scratches all over them.

    Do you need any more proof that Feminism isn't about equality?

  • Cross examination is the second line of defence for a falsely accused person. This will creat a flood gate of Asange type of cases

  • This is another splendid reason to walk away from having any interaction with women.
    It is too easy and almost free of consequences for a woman to accuse a man of rape falsely.
    Women have become too toxic, too dangerous, for interaction with them to survive a rational cost/risk/benefit analysis.

  • I get the concept behind this and I support that.
    But, i think it will be a bad idea in practice. There needs to be the opportunity to cross examine and challenge any statement, as otherwise it will lead to a very one sided trial. It will be interesting to see how this affects convictions.

  • Gynocracy. This was done in order to protect false rape allegations.

    If the "victim" doesn't have the gall to show up because of trauma, then the "accused" shouldn't have to show up because of embarrassment.

    Or at least, if they want to pass something like this, they should reform how "victims" are punished for making false accusations.

  • A law that condems men to prison by default and automatically grants women victim status and innocence by default. The usual i guess

  • If feminists had it their way, women could falsely accuse a men of rape and they would go straight to prison without being proven guilty. I think this is the road we are going down.

  • This is an awful idea. So we're going to remove any chance of justice being done by not being able to question one of the two most important people in a case.

  • This is in order to protect the rape victim themselves. It's much the same method that's used in child abuse cases. Essentially it makes the rape victim a vulnerable witness which is what they are. It could technically skew their testimony in court if their alleged attacker/rapist was sitting there watching them deliver said testimony as they may feel intimidated or threatened simply by their presence.

    However, at the same time if the accusation is indeed false. It could allow the false accuser to throw out all sorts of bullshit while reducing the risk of repercussion.

  • i dont like it... i think live video link works fine as it is but you have missed one thing... in the small print it won't be just recorded testimony but will also include scrutiny by the defense

  • Why don't they do the pre record and still make them come to court to see if their version is still coherent.

  • I think it is a good move to save rape survivor from the trauma.

  • More from Guys