Play Nice Is rape even a crime in this country?

[Donners]

You could change that to 33 years as far as I can see.

Depends on how you count Milne, I suppose. If not that, then the closest thing that I can think of was of the brother of an AFL player - and he got an outrageously low sentence.

Lovett and Daw were both at least taken as far as possible, and given that rape at trial is around a 50-50 prospect at best, an acquittal at trial is not that surprising.

Lovett was significantly affected by a bad Court of Appeal decision which was subsequently overturned by the High Court; the result could have been different if it had come a few years later.

Daw...well, something significant happened towards the end of that trial which may have affected the outcome; the media didn't pick up on it [though given the Herald Sun's coverage of Milne, which was either biased in his favour or just incompetent, I wouldn't trust their reports anyway], but some people involved certainly did. There's a story to come out of that, and I hope it does some day.

At least a few are actually making it to trial now, though. Goodness knows it's nothing new; I know a few people who used to be heavily involved in the VFA, and a few players were infamous when it came to their treatment of women.

 

[AngryRanga]

The statistics show that even 'real' rape alleagations harldly ever lead to convictions with supporting evidence.

As noted in the OP, women are 45 times more likely to not report a rape than lie about one.

How are these stats formulated? Given that about 3% of cases are "proven rapes" according to the justice system, how can you determine when someone is lying or not lying, or if the allegation is real, above that 3%?

 

[Run n Spread]

Depends on how you count Milne, I suppose. If not that, then the closest thing that I can think of was of the brother of an AFL player - and he got an outrageously low sentence.

Lovett and Daw were both at least taken as far as possible, and given that rape at trial is around a 50-50 prospect at best, an acquittal at trial is not that surprising.

Lovett was significantly affected by a bad Court of Appeal decision which was subsequently overturned by the High Court; the result could have been different if it had come a few years later.

Daw...well, something significant happened towards the end of that trial which may have affected the outcome; the media didn't pick up on it [though given the Herald Sun's coverage of Milne, which was either biased in his favour or just incompetent, I wouldn't trust their reports anyway], but some people involved certainly did. There's a story to come out of that, and I hope it does some day.

At least a few are actually making it to trial now, though. Goodness knows it's nothing new; I know a few people who used to be heavily involved in the VFA, and a few players were infamous when it came to their treatment of women.

My "uneducated" opinion before I get flamed:

Milne - The way that case was run was a disgrace. First evidence is contaminated and detectives "heavied." Then they weren't influenced. The conduct of the lead investigator, than the evidence is suddenly uncontaminated, numerous probes later nothing is done. Yet Milne complains about being called a rapist suddenly charges are laid only for a deal to be done at the 11th hour.

Just a cluster f from the very start. No way you can uncluster it 10 years later.

Daw - Appeared a He said She said. Can't convict without reasonable doubt.

Lovett - Based on what was reported imo very lucky.

These are just AFL cases thou. What happens in wider society in these cases would be much the same.

 

[Run n Spread]

How are these stats formulated? Given that about 3% of cases are "proven rapes" according to the justice system, how can you determine when someone is lying or not lying, or if the allegation is real, above that 3%?

You can't sadly. I don't mean to be callous but how do you know for certain? It is why the burden is so high in Criminal matters.

Hate to say it but better to let 10 guilty go free than have the innocent locked up (which has happened).

All you can say is there is a difference between been found Not Guilty and Innocent.

 

[Donners]

Well, that's the thing. People form and express opinions about high-profile matters, despite knowing little about criminal law or the specific matter.

With social media these days, those opinions are expressed publicly and widely. I, foolishly, read some of it at times. In addition to plenty of misinformation and misunderstanding, there are many outright offensive comments about the complainant. If I can read it, so can they and those close to them - which is just what happened in the Wild matter.

It is little wonder people don't want to go ahead in potentially high-profile matters.

To give just a little example of how feral some people can be, the prosecutor of one of those footballer trials had to remove his mobile number from his VicBar profile because he was copping abusive phone calls about the matter. If they target someone who is just doing their job, imagine what they write and say about the complainant.

Maybe we should be looking at the Legal profession, in particular the amount of money the State pays their lawyers.
If I'm an up and coming lawyer with a tough reputation, and may I be corrected if I'm wrong, but I'd be looking at earning more money defending rapists than prosecuting them.

Just saw this and laughed (in a bitter way, rather than in any sense of disagreement).

There is more money in legal aid than prosecution, let alone privately-funded defence (which pays a hell of a lot more than both).

Some solicitors running trials are on less money than a graduate teacher, and prosecution barrister rates haven't gone up in years. Plenty of good criminal law barristers will not work for the prosecution because the pay is so poor.

Unfortunately, the government's focus on being tough on crime only extends to clumsy populist measures, not important practical things like this.

 

[Brunswick Trap King]

You can't sadly. I don't mean to be callous but how do you know for certain? It is why the burden is so high in Criminal matters.

Hate to say it but better to let 10 guilty go free than have the innocent locked up (which has happened).

All you can say is there is a difference between been found Not Guilty and Innocent.

That's an interesting moral dilemma, isn't it?

Would you feel the same if you knew those 10 would go ahead and rape another 10 girls in the future?

 

[Run n Spread]

Here is an uncomfortable question:

What turns otherwise functioning, integrated members of society into Rapists?

If we have an epidemic (and I will defer to the experts on this) what is driving it?

And question: Is the problem getting better since the bad old days, worse or staying the same?

 

[Run n Spread]

Well, that's the thing. People form and express opinions about high-profile matters, despite knowing little about criminal law or the specific matter.

With social media these days, those opinions are expressed publicly and widely. I, foolishly, read some of it at times. In addition to plenty of misinformation and misunderstanding, there are many outright offensive comments about the complainant. If I can read it, so can they and those close to them - which is just what happened in the Wild matter.

It is little wonder people don't want to go ahead in potentially high-profile matters.

To give just a little example of how feral some people can be, the prosecutor of one of those footballer trials had to remove his mobile number from his VicBar profile because he was copping abusive phone calls about the matter. If they target someone who is just doing their job, imagine what they write and say about the complainant.

I don't doubt there are ferals.

Some people do know about Criminal Law thou and take an interest but short of attending trials or reading transcripts (not really practical) how else do they become informed but by reading available information and critically analysing it?

 

[Run n Spread]

That's an interesting moral dilemma, isn't it?

Would you feel the same if you knew those 10 would go ahead and rape another 10 girls in the future?

I'd be horrified. What about the poor bastard inside thou?

We don't live in a perfect world.

 

[Brunswick Trap King]

Here is an uncomfortable question:

What turns otherwise functioning, integrated members of society into Rapists?

If we have an epidemic (and I will defer to the experts on this) what is driving it?

And question: Is the problem getting better since the bad old days, worse or staying the same?

Power, desperation, lack of morality, lack of empathy, mental illness.

I don't think we have an epidemic, I think it's just more readily reported now than it had been in the past, where it was more taboo. I could be entirely wrong though, and I defer to Donners here.

 

[Brunswick Trap King]

I'd be horrified. What about the poor bastard inside thou?

We don't live in a perfect world.

Is it worse for him than for the ten women?

It's really a pointless hypothetical that I'm glad we'll never have to enact!

 

[Donners]

Some people do know about Criminal Law thou and take an interest but short of attending trials or reading transcripts (not really practical) how else do they become informed but by reading available information and critically analysing it?

That's just it - they aren't informed.

When the "available information" is mostly coming from the media - spun, cherry-picked and sometimes outright inaccurate - any critical analysis resulting from it is inherently weak.

That's even before getting into the law itself. Lawyers and judges get them wrong at times, so a person who isn't actually at the heart of it is even less likely to properly apply it.

I recently read a 20-page written case on one aspect of one area of law (tendency & coincidence evidence), with references to numerous authorities. The legal argument went for two days. I know the area very well, but even I had to work bloody hard to understand it.

If someone on social media wants to express their critical analysis of that case based on a few media articles (by reporters who drift in and out for a few days, or pop in just at the end, and generally haven't even managed to pick up much legal understanding by osmosis), then you'll understand if I don't regard them as informed, or think their analysis is worth the changing of pixels on my screen. To see them express it passionately and forcefully when they have no real understanding of what they are discussing is just bizarre.

Sitting in trials (they are open for the most part, after all) and studying judgments might be a start. Anything less is not what I would consider knowing criminal law.

And hey, there's nothing wrong with taking an interest without having a full understanding. I do that with medicine. I would at least consider myself more informed than the average person on that score. However, I wouldn't presume to think of myself as an authority on it, nor to be able to conduct a reliable and worthwhile analysis of a topic.

 

[Run n Spread]

That's just it - they aren't informed.
when they have no real understanding of what they are discussing is just bizarre.

Sitting in trials (they are open for the most part, after all) and studying judgments might be a start. Anything less is not what I would consider knowing criminal law.

That's just it thou. The law of the land affects us all. We all live under its code. If there is one thing people should be passionate about it is about issues that influence their lives and the circumstances they live under. Unless you thing the Law should be yet anther Boy's Club where only the elite/knowledgeable/in crowd gain entry?

It is all well and good to pontificate but you are dealing with people's lives after all.

 

[Donners]

That's just it thou. The law of the land affects us all. We all live under its code. If there is one thing people should be passionate about it is about issues that influence their lives and the circumstances they live under. Unless you thing the Law should be yet anther Boy's Club where only the elite/knowledgeable/in crowd gain entry?

It is all well and good to pontificate but you are dealing with people's lives after all.

Don't sit in your Ivory Tower and assume the bogans out there can't read or are ignorant.

People can express opinions about "issues that influence their lives and the circumstances they live under" without expressing ignorantly-formed conclusions about specific matters and people involved in them, which is the topic at hand.

That is dealing with people's lives, and having dealt with some of those people, I regard it as particular poor behaviour.

Ivory Tower? I have spent years dealing day after day with the people who are at the heart of these sort of matters - on both sides. One just committed suicide a few weeks ago. So perhaps it's no wonder that I have little patience for ignorant discussion of matters which directly affect those people.

When they come from someone who has expressed the sort of opinions that I've seen from you, again ignorantly formed, then my patience is even less.

 

[Run n Spread]

When they come from someone who has expressed the sort of opinions that I've seen from you, again ignorantly formed, then my patience is even less.

Which specific opinions? Name them and we will discuss. (PM me the transcript links relevant to my opinions you are so objectionable over)

Granted Ivory Tower was OTT. But ignorant I am not.

 

[Run n Spread]

When they come from someone who has expressed the sort of opinions that I've seen from you, again ignorantly formed, then my patience is even less.

Maybe just maybe you don't know everything and there is more than one perspective.

 

[Brick Loosener]

love these

 

[Mofra]

http://www.news.com.au/national/cou...t/news-story/dfc2a7d6b1958d9f752c91d401d2dd4d

Earlier this week, the court heard the alleged victim was “crying on the street” when her friend found her.
Giving evidence on Wednesday, the friend said she was talking to someone on the dance floor and when she turned around her friend “was no longer there”.

She left the nightclub and tried to contact her friend to see where she was but she did not receive an immediate reply.

When her friend did finally call her she was “breathing heavily, crying and she sounded scared.” She found her friend on the street and said “she was just a mess”. “She was hunched over, she couldn’t really stand and she was very upset,” she said.

Found not guilty.
Yeah, no problem with the law at all

 

[Run n Spread]

http://www.news.com.au/national/cou...t/news-story/dfc2a7d6b1958d9f752c91d401d2dd4d



Found not guilty.
Yeah, no problem with the law at all

Says earlier conviction was quashed on appeal.

Do you mean found not guilty on the second Judge only trial?

 

[Tas]

Given the incredibly low conviction rates and the number of cases with charges being dropped, including the Wild case where three men took turns with a 14 year old girl in Geelong:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-...g-girl-in-geelong/8300100?WT.ac=statenews_vic

The question needs to be asked.

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/re...e/news-story/9fc4a65689f180b3534d79f4fd019b8e

We have a system where a crime is drastically under-reported, and of the crimes that are reported only 3% result in a conviction.

Given the brutal treatment of victims by the system the actual trauma of taking the matter to court is enough to disincentivise so many people to take no further action.
What should be done?

The problem is there are usually no witnesses and there is a lack of evidence of a struggle to suggest that it wasn't consensual. It is a very serious crime and the penalty if found guilty is quite severe, however, our society believes it is better to let someone get away with a crime than to falsely put an innocent person in jail for a crime they didn't commit, so the weight of evidence required (beyond ANY reasonable doubt), is exceptionally difficult to prove in most situations.

While it sounds appealing to lower the burden of proof requirement, it will result in innocent people sent to prison for a long time and their life irreversibly changed or ruined, while people can live with it when it is just statistics, ask yourself how you would feel if your partner, brother, father, etc was falsely accused and if it wasn't the hardest thing to have them convicted for rape. I can guarantee you would feel differently about it.

I just don't have any answers, nobody does, it is why it is such a horrible problem.

 

[Tas]

It's amazing how much influence that AFL/Clubs have over the judicial process.

AFL has no influence over a jury, what they do have is money and if you have a good lawyer then it isn't the greatest challenge for a good experienced and expensive lawyer to drum up some doubt if there aren't any witnesses or much in the way of physical evidence and highlight to the jury that if there is any reasonable doubt then they are duty bound to give a not guilty verdict even if they feel he might have or probably did it.

While justice is important and we should have a better system to catch and punish those who break the law, someone who is assaulted or raped still lives with the trauma of that experience for the rest of their lives, we need to do a lot more to find a way to stop them from happening in the first place, the best cure is prevention.

The vast majority of rape/sexual assaults are between two people that are known to each other; a friend, in a relationship or were in a relationship. The threat from random strangers is quite low. I don't know what happens that causes people to do something like that on another person, someone they know. There must be more we can do to prevent these from happening.

 

[Jobe Watson]

It doesn't help that women like this make it harder for the true victims of rape to see justice, as they waste the police and court's time and resources. Although it sounds like the investigators were pretty negligent themselves in this case.

Police refused to drop the charges despite being handed photographic evidence — including email and text exchanges — that cast serious doubt on his wife’s version of events.

Judge Mark Williams labelled the prosecution case into the rape and assault charges as “most unsatisfactory” and lashed them for ignoring “cogent and consistent objective evidence” that supported the man’s evidence the sex was consensual.

And of course she gets away scot-free, with her identity hidden and her reputation intact.

 

[drazah]

Convicted rapists should be given far harsher sentences.

False rape accusers should be given similar sentences.