Accused rapist Ched Evans to be released from prison

[equationgirl]

A more recent and equally tragic case: http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/feb/08/sexual-abuse-victim-killed-herself-trial

A tragically and desperately said case. I remember reading about it at the time.

 

[bluescreen]

And as the whole sorry Savile/Rolf Harris etc affair has shown, if it's someone famous they are often not believed even if they do report.

Cf how the police ignored complaints by Watkins' fiancée FOUR times, and then prosecuted her for gathering evidence.
IPCC look into why police ignored Ian Watkins warnings

 

[purenarcotic]

The psychological effects of rape can be devastating. To give some sort of idea of the scale of things, the local rape and sexual violence project has a waiting list of six months to just get an initial assessment for counselling and support from them. There is a further waiting list after the assessment to actually get the counselling. It's a huge problem.

 

[Citizen66]

The father-in-law is the biggest bastard in all this. Bourgeois cunt using his wealth to harass the victim and attempt to buy back the reputation of the commodity that has fuck all respect for women, including his own daughter. Seriously twisted money orientated people.

 

[cesare]

The psychological effects of rape can be devastating. To give some sort of idea of the scale of things, the local rape and sexual violence project has a waiting list of six months to just get an initial assessment for counselling and support from them. There is a further waiting list after the assessment to actually get the counselling. It's a huge problem.

I agree (just in case anyone thinks that the psychological effects of rape and my rape have gone unnoticed by me, in some way).

 

[equationgirl]

There is hopefully a positive aspect to the Ched Evans case, all the publicity about the original trial, the conviction, the sentence, the release and his failed attempt to return to the game. This might just filter through to current and future players and maybe they will behave better in the future

We can but help. even small changes help shape the large ones - would so many people have actively voiced their opinions in such a cohesive manner even ten years ago? At least social media has helped get the word out their and give an outlet for people's voices when they strongly disagree with something.

 

[equationgirl]

I agree (just in case anyone thinks that the psychological effects of rape and my rape have gone unnoticed by me, in some way).

God no. And I'm also sorry for everything you and your family have been through

 

[equationgirl]

The psychological effects of rape can be devastating. To give some sort of idea of the scale of things, the local rape and sexual violence project has a waiting list of six months to just get an initial assessment for counselling and support from them. There is a further waiting list after the assessment to actually get the counselling. It's a huge problem.

Christ that's depressing.

 

[purenarcotic]

Christ that's depressing.

Obviously a lack of funding for staff adds fuel to the fire but there is so little free counselling out there that the service is totally and utterly overwhelmed.

 

[purenarcotic]

I agree (just in case anyone thinks that the psychological effects of rape and my rape have gone unnoticed by me, in some way).

That wasn't meant to be a dig or anything, I hope I haven't caused any offence or anything (haven't read the thread much).

 

[Citizen66]

Transfer of funds from social to private hands.

 

[equationgirl]

Transfer of funds from social to private hands.

For counselling? Your post isn't clear what you mean.

 

[Citizen66]

For counselling? Your post isn't clear what you mean.

Sorry, I mean what's going on backstage during our current 'financial crisis' which counselling has fallen victim to. In the broad economic sense. I'm not suggesting those units have been privatised, although that may come.

 

[equationgirl]

Sorry, I mean what's going on backstage during our current 'financial crisis' which counselling has fallen victim to. In the broad economic sense. I'm not suggesting those units have been privatised, although that may come.

it's a horrendous thought which no doubt the tories will leap upon. And the only people that will suffer are the ones who need support the most.

 

[ViolentPanda]

The psychological effects of rape can be devastating. To give some sort of idea of the scale of things, the local rape and sexual violence project has a waiting list of six months to just get an initial assessment for counselling and support from them. There is a further waiting list after the assessment to actually get the counselling. It's a huge problem.

Resources are (and always have been) strained, and given that the volume of victims reporting to such projects is a fraction of the total volume of victims, this just points up how power perceives women in general, and raped women in particular (I've deliberately said "power" rather than "society",because I believe that society as a whole is slightly more enlightened than those who hold the reins of power). They're a "cause" to be paid lip service to, rather than being victims of a systemic power imbalance that frequently helps facilitate their violation.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

“It has been claimed that those using social media in an abusive and vindictive way towards this woman are supporters of mine,” the statement said. “I wish to make it clear that these people are not my supporters and I condemn their actions entirely.”

http://www.theguardian.com/football/2015/jan/15/ched-evans-friend-victim

A “true friend and supporter” of Ched Evans made abusive comments about the convicted rapist’s victim and posted a link to a website that unlawfully names her, the Guardian can reveal.

Ciaran Goggins’ picture was posted in a gallery of photographs on the website set up by Evans’s family and friends to maintain the former Manchester City, Sheffield United and Wales striker’s innocence... Goggins tweeted during last week’s furore over Oldham Athletic’s ultimately cancelled effort to sign Evans: “I am proud to be the only non-blood relative on #justiceforched site.”

The Evans website displayed a picture of Goggins, tagged “a True Friend and Supporter” at an Amnesty International conference, wearing a T-shirt picturing a smiling Evans and the logo “Ched Evans is innocent”.

What d'ya know, the Evans' statement was bullshit. *shocked that a rapist scumbag is also a liar*

 

[Part 2]

Ched Evans website referred to CPS over alleged identification of rape victim

http://gu.com/p/45vkm

 

[spanglechick]

http://www.theguardian.com/football/2015/jan/15/ched-evans-friend-victim




What d'ya know, the Evans' statement was bullshit. *shocked that a rapist scumbag is also a liar*

Hold the phone...!

He was at an Amesty International conference, wearing a "Ched Evans is innocent" t shirt? He sees this as an Amnesty-style human rights issue?!

 

[The Boy]

Hold the phone...!

He was at an Amesty International conference, wearing a "Ched Evans is innocent" t shirt? He sees this as an Amnesty-style human rights issue?!

Isn't that standard?

 

[jcsd]

It's not generally the process of trial itself that causes problems for victims, it's whether the judge gives leeway to the defence that allows the defence to introduce prurient and unnecessary questions of the victim - basically sanctioned intimidation. Unless judges are statutorily directed to not allow such shit, trials will never be fair, especially not for victims.

For me the bigger problem seems to be perception of what might happen at Court rather than what is likely to happen in court. For example what you have said simply is not true, the defence can't just ask the victim whatever they like and they certainly can't seek to intimidate the victim. In particular there are statutory protections preventing the defence from discussing the complainant's previous sexual history unless they can argue beforehand that not discussing it will lead to an unfair trial.

 

[bluescreen]

jcsd, I put it to you that while (which is not admitted) the risk may be small, the potential damage is unendurable. So rape victims are not willing to put themselves in the position where they risk hostile cross-examination, even if it's within the rules.
eg: Frances Andrade
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/apr/13/rape-sexual-assault-frances-andrade-court

 

[MAD-T-REX]

I don't see what can be done about that, aside from providing better support services for victims. The defence has to be allowed to robustly challenge a prosecution witness, especially when the witness' evidence is the entirety of the prosecution's case.

 

[toggle]

I don't see what can be done about that, aside from providing better support services for victims. The defence has to be allowed to robustly challenge a prosecution witness, especially when the witness' evidence is the entirety of the prosecution's case.

education.

the judiciary need to be educated and need to take a strong role in educating juries about rape myths. we need to destroy the ideas that loads of women regularly lie when they regret having had sex, that rape is always a violent physical attack that leaves injuries, that it is only rape if it is overcoming active physical and verbal resistance.

They also need to discuss victim behavior, someone disassociating will be perceived as lying because they are too unemotional, while someone who shows too much emotion, or the wrong emotions after repeated bullying assertions that they are a liar will often be assumed to be someone who has been 'caught out'. trauma can also do odd things to memory. sometimes, parts of the incident will be forgotten until something triggers recall of that. This is all normal, commonplace, but all results in the witness being considered unreliable. these and the above need to be talked about to juries as a prelude to more education in society about consent and rape myths.

Questioning also needs to be limited. There need to be clear guidelines on where a victim's medical history is deemed relevant. These are supposed to be in place, but in reality, the defense can still go on a fishing expedition to try to provoke the victim and can drag up any mental health history and use public prejudice, not actual fact to discredit them. people already think women lie loads. and loads of women are crazy. put the two together and you've got no hope. there's also a line between providing a defence, and open bullying. these require guidelines to judges about when evidence should and shouldn't be admissible and when to halt questioning.

and judges who encourage rape myths instead of challenging them and who allow fishing expeditions and bullying of witnesses need to be kicked off the bench.

and yes. additional support to victims, someone who can act as a buffer between them and the judicial process. whose voice will be listened to if the police inappropriately question victims, or try to shuffle cases away because of their own prejudices. who can explain the court process, introduce the victim to the prosecutor and give them an idea of what will be required of them.

 

[ViolentPanda]

For me the bigger problem seems to be perception of what might happen at Court rather than what is likely to happen in court. For example what you have said simply is not true, the defence can't just ask the victim whatever they like and they certainly can't seek to intimidate the victim.

I haven't claimed that the defence "can just ask". I specifically stated (it's there, in the post you quoted but perhaps didn't bother to read properly) that the issue is judicial leeway. As for intimidation, if you're a lawyer or a career criminal you may not be intimidated by the court set-up or how the personnel behave, but many "average punters" are. Add to that barristers skilled in rhetoric and semantic gymnastics, and intimidation still often takes place.

In particular there are statutory protections preventing the defence from discussing the complainant's previous sexual history unless they can argue beforehand that not discussing it will lead to an unfair trial.

And yet, despite that statutory protection and the statutory protections for vulnerable witnesses, somehow it's still an issue for women who've been sexually assaulted and go through the judicial process. As the Americans would say,"go figure!".

 

[ViolentPanda]

I don't see what can be done about that, aside from providing better support services for victims. The defence has to be allowed to robustly challenge a prosecution witness, especially when the witness' evidence is the entirety of the prosecution's case.

The point I was attempting to make above,and which jcsd appears to have missed is that part of the problem isn't in statute,it's in judicial discretion. If you've got a judge who lets certain issues slide (and we have a long and ignominious history of ignoble judges), then victims will still be exposed to a ferocity (I use the word advisedly) of questioning that goes beyond "robust challenge". The system is only as good, as neutral, as justice-seeking as those who are part of the criminal justice system and the institutional behaviours they engage in allow it to be.

 

[ViolentPanda]

education.

the judiciary need to be educated and need to take a strong role in educating juries about rape myths. we need to destroy the ideas that loads of women regularly lie when they regret having had sex, that rape is always a violent physical attack that leaves injuries, that it is only rape if it is overcoming active physical and verbal resistance.

They also need to discuss victim behavior, someone disassociating will be perceived as lying because they are too unemotional, while someone who shows too much emotion, or the wrong emotions after repeated bullying assertions that they are a liar will often be assumed to be someone who has been 'caught out'. trauma can also do odd things to memory. sometimes, parts of the incident will be forgotten until something triggers recall of that. This is all normal, commonplace, but all results in the witness being considered unreliable. these and the above need to be talked about to juries as a prelude to more education in society about consent and rape myths.

Questioning also needs to be limited. There need to be clear guidelines on where a victim's medical history is deemed relevant. These are supposed to be in place, but in reality, the defense can still go on a fishing expedition to try to provoke the victim and can drag up any mental health history and use public prejudice, not actual fact to discredit them. people already think women lie loads. and loads of women are crazy. put the two together and you've got no hope. there's also a line between providing a defence, and open bullying. these require guidelines to judges about when evidence should and shouldn't be admissible and when to halt questioning.

and judges who encourage rape myths instead of challenging them and who allow fishing expeditions and bullying of witnesses need to be kicked off the bench.

and yes. additional support to victims, someone who can act as a buffer between them and the judicial process. whose voice will be listened to if the police inappropriately question victims, or try to shuffle cases away because of their own prejudices. who can explain the court process, introduce the victim to the prosecutor and give them an idea of what will be required of them.

^^^^This. All of this.

 

[jcsd]

jcsd, I put it to you that while (which is not admitted) the risk may be small, the potential damage is unendurable. So rape victims are not willing to put themselves in the position where they risk hostile cross-examination, even if it's within the rules.
eg: Frances Andrade
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/apr/13/rape-sexual-assault-frances-andrade-court

Yes I'm not arguing that victims find the process distressing, what I'm disagreeing with is the assertion that there are widescale abuses by the judiciary and barristers. Where are these ideas coming from? Is it from actual experience, or is it from anecdotal evidence in the media? Are many people's perceptions of rape trials stuck on what may've been common place before certain reforms have been made? How can you solve a problem if you're just taking axiomatically that there are a certain set of reasons behind the problem without really being honest about whether that is the case or not?

In my opinion is it isn't that easy, for example, for a defence barrister to bring up a complainant's sexual history, but I also find it galling that there should be a total prohibition on bringing it up even if it means it leads to unsafe convictions. And I think this is my basic objection to some of what is being suggested - it doesn't necessarily reflect the reality of what actually happens. I'm not suggesting that there are not reforms that can be made and for example there are even as we speak new reforms in terms of how complainants are cross-examined being piloted, I'm just some of what is being said here about rape trials seems to be more about perception than what actually happens

One reform that I personally would make is to reduce the amount of time it takes for a rape case to get to trial. It's true for any criminal case that the more it is delayed then the less likely there will be a conviction, but iu is particularly true for certain kind of cases which are emotionally charged and where the victim and defendant may have or have had a close relationship (there is a tendency to rape as a crime perpetrated by a stranger in a dark alley, but overwhelmingly the victim and rapist will be known to each other and very often they may have a close relationship such as a member of the family, a spouse, a friend, etc) The prime reason for this is that the resolve of victims and witnesses will tend to waiver- for example for a particularly traumatic offence that goes to court two years after the offence happened the victim may feel that they are psychologically recovering from the offence and that having to give evidence could endanger that

 

[bluescreen]

Good point on delay. It's painful and unfair all round. Wish we could get that sorted.

 

[equationgirl]

Good point on delay. It's painful and unfair all round. Wish we could get that sorted.

I was recently a witness on a case of assault and theft that took six months to get even to the stage where I had to go to a police station and watch a DVD of images for a formal identification of the complainant, it was two months before the person who had been assaulted was even fit enough for work, let alone contemplate the stress of a court case.

The court system is overworked and underpaid.

 

[toggle]

Yes I'm not arguing that victims find the process distressing, what I'm disagreeing with is the assertion that there are widescale abuses by the judiciary and barristers. Where are these ideas coming from? Is it from actual experience, or is it from anecdotal evidence in the media? Are many people's perceptions of rape trials stuck on what may've been common place before certain reforms have been made? How can you solve a problem if you're just taking axiomatically that there are a certain set of reasons behind the problem without really being honest about whether that is the case or not?

In my opinion is it isn't that easy, for example, for a defence barrister to bring up a complainant's sexual history, but I also find it galling that there should be a total prohibition on bringing it up even if it means it leads to unsafe convictions. And I think this is my basic objection to some of what is being suggested - it doesn't necessarily reflect the reality of what actually happens. I'm not suggesting that there are not reforms that can be made and for example there are even as we speak new reforms in terms of how complainants are cross-examined being piloted, I'm just some of what is being said here about rape trials seems to be more about perception than what actually happens

One reform that I personally would make is to reduce the amount of time it takes for a rape case to get to trial. It's true for any criminal case that the more it is delayed then the less likely there will be a conviction, but iu is particularly true for certain kind of cases which are emotionally charged and where the victim and defendant may have or have had a close relationship (there is a tendency to rape as a crime perpetrated by a stranger in a dark alley, but overwhelmingly the victim and rapist will be known to each other and very often they may have a close relationship such as a member of the family, a spouse, a friend, etc) The prime reason for this is that the resolve of victims and witnesses will tend to waiver- for example for a particularly traumatic offence that goes to court two years after the offence happened the victim may feel that they are psychologically recovering from the offence and that having to give evidence could endanger that

it isn't necessarily about the raising of sexual history, and discussing rape in a relationship it is of course unavoidable to discuss that sex took place in that relationship. it is the fact that there isn't enough challenge to the commonly held idea that it is acceptable to assume consent to an act on one occasion means it can happen anytime, and consent to one act means consent to anything. this is before we get onto the double standards about female sexuality.