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

[Guest makapaka]

13 minutes ago, Halibut said:

The defence will use any trick in the book - including trying to use the victims own sexual history to try and get the accused off.

It’s the prosecution that are pushing for it.

 

why would they do that?

[Top Cats Hat]

5 minutes ago, makapaka said:

It’s the prosecution that are pushing for it.

 

why would they do that?

Because they have been criticised for not disclosing stuff which may be of use to the defence.

 

Like the Dangerous Dogs Act, it is a hurried knee jerk reaction to something without looking at other ways to deal with the problem (in this case, simply making sure that the CPS actually does its job properly). In the case which sparked this, it wasn't that the evidence wasn't there in the first place. It was, but was handed over to the defence only 10 days before the case came to court.

[Guest makapaka]

1 hour ago, Top Cats Hat said:

Because they have been criticised for not disclosing stuff which may be of use to the defence.

 

Like the Dangerous Dogs Act, it is a hurried knee jerk reaction to something without looking at other ways to deal with the problem (in this case, simply making sure that the CPS actually does its job properly). In the case which sparked this, it wasn't that the evidence wasn't there in the first place. It was, but was handed over to the defence only 10 days before the case came to court.

Stuff like what - stuff on mobile phones? 

[Top Cats Hat]

13 minutes ago, makapaka said:

Stuff like what - stuff on mobile phones? 

Some but mostly on social media.

[Cyclone]

18 hours ago, Waldo said:

How is not doing something, an action?

You think that refusing to do something isn't "an action"?  Pedantry of the highest order.  It's certainly a choice isn't it, and when the choice is to refuse to act on a report of a crime do you really want to split that hair.

 

Clearly inaction can be coercive.  You don't get your pocket money unless you take the rubbish out to the bin.  A simple, and probably common case of coercion by the threat of not doing something.

13 hours ago, makapaka said:

No because it's completely out of context with the motive for requesting the information. Which is to prove a rape and convict a perpetrator.

 

This goes back to your (still awaited) explanation that "this is all about disproving the story of the victim" - who is trying to do that?

No, it doesn't.  It doesn't go back to anything.  I've just demonstrated that it's coercive.  You need to accept that it is, because it quite obviously fits the definition of the word.

10 hours ago, makapaka said:

Stuff like what - stuff on mobile phones? 

Stuff that is useful to the defence yes.  Not stuff that is useful for the prosecution.

[Guest makapaka]

7 hours ago, Cyclone said:

You think that refusing to do something isn't "an action"?  Pedantry of the highest order.  It's certainly a choice isn't it, and when the choice is to refuse to act on a report of a crime do you really want to split that hair.

 

Clearly inaction can be coercive.  You don't get your pocket money unless you take the rubbish out to the bin.  A simple, and probably common case of coercion by the threat of not doing something.

No, it doesn't.  It doesn't go back to anything.  I've just demonstrated that it's coercive.  You need to accept that it is, because it quite obviously fits the definition of the word.

Stuff that is useful to the defence yes.  Not stuff that is useful for the prosecution.

 No because you forgot to include an explanation of how seeking evidence to prove the occurrence of a rape is a hostile act.

 

You’re confusing (purposely) a request for information to prove a crime which if not provided could impact the ability to prove that crime -  with a threat.

 

theres no threat - they want it to help their enquiry and hopefully prove or disprove the accusation beyond reasonable doubt.

 

now - I have asked about 3/4 times - why is the CPS request for this disclosure about disproving the story of the victim. You need to justify that statement don’t you really - because if it’s not about disproving the story of the victim - isn’t it the opposite?

[Waldo]

Failing to do something that someone expects you to so, is not coercion. The persons is taking no action, and isn't trying to influence or affect someone; they're simply not taking action.

[Cyclone]

Refusing to do something unless the other does something you wish is clearly coercion.

5 hours ago, makapaka said:

 No because you forgot to include an explanation of how seeking evidence to prove the occurrence of a rape is a hostile act.

 

We both know that there is no evidence to be had on the victims phone.  The only thing the victims phone could ever do is discredit the victim.

 

There is clearly a threat, it's been widely acknowledged now in the media and police commissioners have called the police and the CPS on it.

 

They want it for whatever reason and they are making a threat to not proceed unless they get what they want.

5 hours ago, makapaka said:

they want it to help their enquiry and hopefully prove or disprove

You just answered your own question didn't you.

5 hours ago, makapaka said:

why is the CPS request for this disclosure about disproving the story of the victim

 

[Top Cats Hat]

5 hours ago, Waldo said:

Failing to do something that someone expects you to so, is not coercion. The persons is taking no action, and isn't trying to influence or affect someone; they're simply not taking action.

Really?

 

That's like saying to a kid 'If you don't tidy your bedroom' you're not getting any tea. Yes, the kid tidies their bedroom but not because they want a tidy bedroom but because they are hungry and want their tea. 

 

They are being coerced into tidying their bedroom.

 

There is absolutely no difference between that and a police officer telling a victim that if they don't hand over their phone they will not persecute the perp.

 

In both cases a threat is being made to force someone to do something that they wouldn't ordinarily want to do. That is coercion and I really don't know why anyone would even deny that it was. 🙄

[Guest makapaka]

1 hour ago, Cyclone said:

Refusing to do something unless the other does something you wish is clearly coercion.

We both know that there is no evidence to be had on the victims phone.  The only thing the victims phone could ever do is discredit the victim.

 

There is clearly a threat, it's been widely acknowledged now in the media and police commissioners have called the police and the CPS on it.

 

They want it for whatever reason and they are making a threat to not proceed unless they get what they want.

You just answered your own question didn't you.

 

No we don't know that at all do we?  You have no basis to make the statement that there is no evidence to be had on a victims phone. None at all.

 

As for disproving the case - do you have an issue with the truth being established?

 

Now - you've still not answered the question - what do you think is the "whatever reason" for the CPS obtaining the phone? That hasn't been answered at all either. Why would the Crown Prosecution Service try and obtain the content of a victims mobile phone to try and discredit the victim? Why would they seek to do that other than if they feel it would assist in securing evidence relating to the crime?

 

Why would the Crown Prosection Service seek to disprove the story of the victim?

Edited May 8, 2019 by makapaka