The failings which have lead to a nationwide review of all live rape and serious sexual assault cases were caused by police forces and prosecutors not carrying out “basic” procedure, the Attorney General has suggested.
In a stinging criticism of authorities' handling a series of failed rape cases, Jeremy Wright QC has said there was “no excuse” and that there was a “substantial problem” with how disclosure protocol is followed.
He also declined to say whether Alison Saunders, director of public prosecutions, should consider her position, but said that tackling the issue required a “joint effort” from prosecutors and police.
Blogger. One has to say that most rapists should be locked up for very long periods of time BUT a huge portion of the blame for failed court cases must lie with feminists and the politically correct.
Precious little distinction is currently made between a drunken fumble where an ignored and uncertain 'no' is classed as being an equivalent to a predatory rapist who leaps out onto the unsuspecting from behind a tree.
The first requirement is for rape to be classified into three distinct levels of seriousness and NOT to fall prey to so much illogical, feminist insistence that 'all men are rapists'. Moreover, any claim made that a rape has occurred must be accepted as an absolute truth according to the leftists' gospel. Just what percentage of jurors are going to buy into such a loopy philosophy?
One must consider the absurd rape conviction of Mike Tyson. A young woman goes up to his hotel room in the early hours of the morning and later claims that 'she did not expect sex to be on the agenda'. The decision to convict was ridiculous. The conviction of footballer Ched Evans was little better.
Feminists claim that the way a woman: acts, dresses, provokes - and often when drunk or drugged up - must not be seen as relevant factors. Again - absurd.
There is a massive distinction to be made between the victim of Rohypnol or similar and a woman who renders herself exceptionally vulnerable - perhaps by wandering off stupidly at 2am with some random pick up in a night club. Both may well be rape - but they are substantially different in degree.
When such distinctions are not made - expect a number of perverse decisions in jury trials.
The inherent problem is that he said/she said can rarely achieve the necessary burden of proof which is, and must always remain, 'beyond reasonable doubt'. The last time I saw a figure for successful rape prosecutions - it was a woeful 7%. The potential for wrongful convictions is perhaps higher in rape cases than in any other form of offence.
This is not helped by the fact that there are so many malicious accusations of rape which make prosecutions far more difficult in genuine cases. The time is upon us when wrongful accusations must attract mandatory minimum sentences of seven years in jail. These false accusers MUST be halted - and they are hardly uncommon.
I am in no position to make any comment on the failings in 'basic procedures' but if these need to be tightened - then so be it!
