I wondered who would be the first to post about that.
I just want to know why that case ever made it so far as court. Under British law, the presumption of innocence applies - which means you need more than one word against another to prosecute. (Which is one reason rape cases are so hard to prosecute).
In the case in question, we didn't even have that - we have an accuser who says she doesn't even know if sex took place, let alone whether she consented. She was clearly just about able to walk because otherwise one person couldn't have seen her home. She was therefore capable of undertaking some actions but has no memory of what. Hardly the unconsicous victim you make her out to be.
It's fair to say that if the woman in the case was that drunk, she probably didn't initiate anything
You've never met amorous drunks? I'm very surprised.
Rohypnol is another matter (and is, I believe, testable for by a number of mechanisms). The question with rohypnol isn't (as it is for rape) "did she consent?", but "who slipped it to her" - an issue that doesn't usually boil down to one person's word against another. Spiking drinks is another matter I'll admit.
The worst part about this, though? The judge ordered the jury to vote 'not guilty' even if they disagreed.
And the prosecution barrister abandoned the case - something they don't do lightly. At that point, no verdict other than "not guilty" should have been possible. The judge was just worried about loose cannons on the bench making a stupid decision running against the law. It is the job of a jury to work out what should happen under the law - and the law in this case is quite clear. The case should never have got to court.
It just strikes me as wrong, if easier for the courts to deal with, that a rapist is let free just because his victim made a mistake.
I couldn't disagree more. Innocent until proven guilty is a fundamental principle of Common Law for a very good reason. It strikes me as wrong to have convictions from the unadorned word of a single person in any circumstance, let alone one when she wasn't sure what she said.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2005-11-25 12:07 pm (UTC)I just want to know why that case ever made it so far as court. Under British law, the presumption of innocence applies - which means you need more than one word against another to prosecute. (Which is one reason rape cases are so hard to prosecute).
In the case in question, we didn't even have that - we have an accuser who says she doesn't even know if sex took place, let alone whether she consented. She was clearly just about able to walk because otherwise one person couldn't have seen her home. She was therefore capable of undertaking some actions but has no memory of what. Hardly the unconsicous victim you make her out to be.
It's fair to say that if the woman in the case was that drunk, she probably didn't initiate anything
You've never met amorous drunks? I'm very surprised.
Rohypnol is another matter (and is, I believe, testable for by a number of mechanisms). The question with rohypnol isn't (as it is for rape) "did she consent?", but "who slipped it to her" - an issue that doesn't usually boil down to one person's word against another. Spiking drinks is another matter I'll admit.
The worst part about this, though? The judge ordered the jury to vote 'not guilty' even if they disagreed.
And the prosecution barrister abandoned the case - something they don't do lightly. At that point, no verdict other than "not guilty" should have been possible. The judge was just worried about loose cannons on the bench making a stupid decision running against the law. It is the job of a jury to work out what should happen under the law - and the law in this case is quite clear. The case should never have got to court.
It just strikes me as wrong, if easier for the courts to deal with, that a rapist is let free just because his victim made a mistake.
I couldn't disagree more. Innocent until proven guilty is a fundamental principle of Common Law for a very good reason. It strikes me as wrong to have convictions from the unadorned word of a single person in any circumstance, let alone one when she wasn't sure what she said.