Rape - Verdict in.

#5
Re: Rape

He will go to Colchester for a spell I guess. I was told the longest you can get sent there is 2 years, then you get transferred to a civvy prison. Is this right?
 
#7
Re: Rape

Not sure about the longest time you can stay in colchester but yeah transfer to civvy prison will happen. I'm pretty sure he will be discharged shore and then sent directly to civvie jail. Not for long enough though, apperently forcing yourself on a woman isn't worthy of a lengthy term, even if you do it over and over again. Still crime is going down....
 
#12
Re: Rape

The deleted post included the line "assault with a friendly weapon"

Not really a suitable post in light of the gravity of the offence, nor something I would wish to see repeated in the media.
 
#13
Re: Rape

I'm sorry gonna get some incoming for this but.....Why did this woman all of the sudden remember? Did she seek lawyers before her therapy? I'm sorry but rape is about power and rage not about sex. IT IS WRONG!! Rape on woman is very hard to prove but this is...??
 
#16
No dramas King, nor any castigation of the original poster.

It's just that one unfortunate comment normally begats another and so on, and with the blasted journo's circling as on Arrse , it could lead to less than favourable selective quoting, as has happened before.
 
#18
Whilst not commenting on this particular case may I remind you all of a few things

1. The standard of proof in criminal matters is beyond reasonable doubt.
2. The Court in Court Martials/jury in civvy trials is unlikely to convict unless they are very sure. You can see that this is an issue because the govt are trying to reduce the ability to have a trial by jury. The govt does not like juries precisely because they do not convict.
3. Leave it at that, because you have not heard the proceedings, and therefore your only information is from the media which delights in distorting matters.
 
#19
rosinacarley said:
Whilst not commenting on this particular case may I remind you all of a few things

1. The standard of proof in criminal matters is beyond reasonable doubt.
2. The Court in Court Martials/jury in civvy trials is unlikely to convict unless they are very sure. You can see that this is an issue because the govt are trying to reduce the ability to have a trial by jury. The govt does not like juries precisely because they do not convict.
3. Leave it at that, because you have not heard the proceedings, and therefore your only information is from the media which delights in distorting matters.
A problem with this is that juries also have a tendency to convict based upon emotional responses (eg "gut" feelings) about a defendant, etc which can very much count against a defendant. Too many miscarriages of justice has arisen because of failure to properly follow the rules on (secondary) disclosure or because juries for some reason were prejudiced against a class of defendant. There has been a lot of publicity recently about there being insufficient convictions in rape trials which could have subconsciously influenced the jury. There is also substantial evidence that recovered memories are problematic in this situation. No conviction should ever be made solely upon such evidence, nor indeed solely upon forensic evidence. In this case I should be interested to learn the facts of the case in some depth before drawing any definitive conclusions about the veracity of the jury's verdict. The information supplied by the BBC however suggests a serious miscarriage of justice may have arisen.

If it goes to Appeal, as I expect it will, an Appeal is no indicator of guilt or innocence as an Appeal is only successful if substantial new evidence comes to light. The judiciary are notoriously resistant to rejecting original jury verdicts, however problematic these may subsequently turn out to be.
 
#20
i WAS at the court martial for the entire time and can assure you that the board was extremely professional. this case is subject to reporting restrictions of the highest order about certain things but i can tell all that it was not a clear cut case by any means. what one peron said was consent another says wasnt. drink played a major factor here and who can say that we havent done something we later regret when we sober up.

i DO NOT for one minute condone or excuse, what a jury of my superiors have deemed, a major crime but he wasnot the JR stalking sex preying rapist that the media has made out.

welcome any ill-informed comments back please.

PS after 5 days of EDMR im still not any the wiser so i pity the poor officers on the board that made this decision
 

Similar threads


Top