Allegations of rape: Why are police asking victims for their phones?

[nikki-red]

Personal comments and insults have been removed. If you cant post without resorting to this then please dont bother.

Thank you.

[Cyclone]

On 16/05/2019 at 17:04, Lockdoctor said:

The goal should be to deter people from making false reports and false allegations.

Absolutely not, the goal should be to encourage higher levels of reporting of sexual assaults and to (legitimately) increase conviction rates.

Your goal is contrary to that and addresses a far less prevalent problem.

On 16/05/2019 at 12:21, makapaka said:

What has been withdrawn and how is it in spite of my support?

The APCC have asked the CPS to withdrawn the form, on the 5th May, nothing in the news about it since then.

[Halibut]

On 16/05/2019 at 17:04, Lockdoctor said:

The goal should be to deter people from making false reports and false allegations.

No. The goal should be to secure more convictions of rapists and sexual abusers. What planet are you on, where you focus on the miniscule numbers of false reports and allegations at the expense of women who are raped and abused? Methinks you're not much of a friend to women and girls.

[Guest makapaka]

2 hours ago, Cyclone said:

Absolutely not, the goal should be to encourage higher levels of reporting of sexual assaults and to (legitimately) increase conviction rates.

Your goal is contrary to that and addresses a far less prevalent problem.

The APCC have asked the CPS to withdrawn the form, on the 5th May, nothing in the news about it since then.

You said it had already been withdrawn?

[JamesR123]

On 16/05/2019 at 16:40, Top Cats Hat said:

Himmler tried that with the SS.

 

Where is he now?

The issue with I have with the SS certainly wasn't the lack of search warrant requirement.

 

You seem to have some odd priorities

[Cyclone]

1 hour ago, makapaka said:

You said it had already been withdrawn?

I got it wrong.

[Joseph D]

On 15/05/2019 at 08:07, Cyclone said:

Her phone wasn't mentioned.

 

What was mentioned were a number of calls and texts.  The texts would be available on his phone and from the network operator, but more importantly.

 

When it became clear that there were problems with her story, only then is appropriate for her to become a target of AN investigation (not the same investigation) into making a false report, at which point perhaps seizing her phone is proportional.

 

Absolutely not.  Unless your intent is to deter people from making reports.

I think the point here is that the potential consequences of someone being wrongly sentenced to many years behind bars should be balanced against the inconvenience of being required to disclose one's private matters to an investigation officer. 

[Cyclone]

11 hours ago, Joseph D said:

I think the point here is that the potential consequences of someone being wrongly sentenced to many years behind bars should be balanced against the inconvenience of being required to disclose one's private matters to an investigation officer. 

The potential for discouraging reports of a crime that is already massively under reported should be be balanced against the very small risk of false reports having been made.

 

And to pretend that the problem is inconvenience is to dismiss the reality of what phones mean to some people and the information that they contain.  It's also not just to the investigating officer is it, there have been examples of information incorrectly being released to the defence, including and up to personal details and the address of the victim being released to the defendant!

Edited June 4, 2019 by Cyclone

[ECCOnoob]

1 hour ago, Cyclone said:

The potential for discouraging reports of a crime that is already massively under reported should be be balanced against the very small risk of false reports having been made.

 

And to pretend that the problem is inconvenience is to dismiss the reality of what phones mean to some people and the information that they contain.  It's also not just to the investigating officer is it, there have been examples of information incorrectly being released to the defence, including and up to personal details and the address of the victim being released to the defendant!

IMO so it should be.   That's a true balance of justice.  

 

All disclosure and details for BOTH parties should be visible and available as the police see fit. 

 

Innocent until proven guilty.  Beyond reasonable doubt is the test.  

 

The accused is stripped bare, torn apart and named and shamed through the court process but somehow the accusor can pick and choose what they give out to investigating authorities and remain private and anonymous throughout.   The imbalance and unfair nature of these trials is unacceptable. 

 

I find it bizarre that some people seem to think that the casualty of a "small number" of wrongly accused and wrongly imprisoned people is acceptable when balanced against the greater good. IMO it isn't.  There shouldn't even be the opportunity for even one miscarriage of justice if it could be prevented by simply ensuring that party disclosure and witness testimony is dealt with on a level playing field.

[Halibut]

1 hour ago, ECCOnoob said:

 

 

The accused is stripped bare, torn apart and named and shamed through the court process 

Not as much as the victim.