so she obviously deserved it...

Originally Posted by Daimo

stuff about wearing the wrong clothes

i think if somebody has it in their tiny mind they're gonna rape someone they will regardless of what the person is wearing...and some may argue that if the victim is wearing a skirt it may prevent them from further injury...

but i dunno how the mind of a rapist works....

[SoulKiss]

Originally Posted by Biker Biggles

Baph.Go on the CICA website and read what they do and what they are for.All will be revealed.They are essentially there to compensate victims of crime(not police incompetance)when the perpetrater either cannot be found or has no means of paying out the victim.In this case she got an apology from the Police,two officers were diciplined-------New sentance-------She applied to CICA and got-----Blablabla.
The CICA bit was nothing to do with what the Ploice did.

Damn going by the calculator - the "Multiple Minor Injuries" I sustained when Mugged should have got me a grand.

Wonder how far back you can claim for.....

[Luckypants]

Originally Posted by Flamin_Squirrel

... that the defence can no longer ask about the womans previous sexual habits havn't helped conviction rates either.

I have NEVER understood what any woman's consensual sex history has to do with being raped.

Can you explain why not allowing this has reduced conviction rates?

Originally Posted by SoulKiss

Damn going by the calculator - the "Multiple Minor Injuries" I sustained when Mugged should have got me a grand.

Wonder how far back you can claim for.....

I think it's 3 years (like other injury claims). Not positive though.

its one persons word against another.

so if the local bike (there is always one) turns round and cries rape after sleeping with half the town people will be naturally suspicious, however, this cannot influence the decision as she can still be raped after all.

[Biker Biggles]

Conviction rates---another can of worms,and very low in rape cases.
Having done my civic duty (Jury Service)some years ago I can see why this is a problem.Nearly always one persons word against another with no witnesses,and given that the case must be proved beyond reasonable doubt,such that you are sure the defendant is guilty this seems inevitable.
From my experience,juries are reluctant to convict if they think facts are being witheld from them.

Originally Posted by Luckypants

Can you explain why not allowing this has reduced conviction rates?

As neillfergie says, really.

He's right of course, in that she doesn't deserve to be raped anymore than anyone else.

But ultimately, what a jury is trying to establish is whether the accused is trust worthy. In a rape case, where the accuser is also often the prime witness, it's just as important to establish her character as much as the accused.

If the accused appears to be of good honest character but the jury is prevented from knowing anything about the accuser then the jury is being asked to send them down because someone, who they've never seen or know anything about, says 'they did it'. In which case, they'll often throw the case out.

[SoulKiss]

Originally Posted by Flamin_Squirrel

But ultimately, what a jury is trying to establish is whether the accused is trust worthy. In a rape case, where the accuser is also often the prime witness, it's just as important to establish her character as much as the accused.

Why does being sexually active make you less trustworthy or of bad character?

Originally Posted by SoulKiss

Why does being sexually active make you less trustworthy or of bad character?

I was wondering the same thing.

Beer. . . helping ugly folk get laid for hundreds of years!