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

[Guest makapaka]

28 minutes ago, Halibut said:

Not as much as the victim.

The issue in that instance is that the accused could be the victim. 

[Cyclone]

8 hours ago, ECCOnoob said:

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.

How is it a balance of justice that someone who has been raped is then stripped of privacy and investigated to make sure that they aren't lying?

 

The police only have one crime to investigate and it isn't on the part of the complainant.

 

If they have reasonable grounds to believe that they are lying then that changes things, but they need reasonable grounds first, it certainly shouldn't be a default assumption.

 

I don't think that any number of wrongly imprisoned people is acceptable, that's more of a right wing view, you'd be familiar with that.  I do think that victims shouldn't be invasively investigated in a way which is likely to reduce the number of reports of an already vastly under reported crime.

I find it bizarre that anyone should want measures put in place that reduce the likelihood of reporting of such crimes, measures like this play directly into the hands of rapists.

[Voice of reason]

7 hours ago, Halibut said:

Not as much as the victim.

The accused could be completely innocent though. A well publicised accusation of sexual violence can be a life sentence, even if completely unfounded.

[Cyclone]

14 hours ago, Voice of reason said:

The accused could be completely innocent though. A well publicised accusation of sexual violence can be a life sentence, even if completely unfounded.

The accused of any crime could be completely innocent, that doesn't mean that we subject the person reporting the crime to intrusive and traumatic investigation.

Edited June 5, 2019 by Cyclone

[Voice of reason]

2 minutes ago, Cyclone said:

The accused of any crime could be completely innocent, that doesn't mean that we subject the person reporting the crime to intrusive and traumatic investigation.

Correct. It's one of the most serious offences possible, and my stance on the treatment of the guilty is a thread in its own right, on which we would most likely disagree.

That said, the accuser, who can remain anonymous has to enable all avenues to be explored. That has to be done in a sensible, sympathetic way, just as any other part of the evidence gathering should be done.

We do have to remember the accused been named in the press and online for such a crime will have their life smashed at that instant, whether subsequently found guilty or not.

The evidence gathering has to be both rigourous and sympathetic.

[Cyclone]

No, legally they don't, and there's no justification that they should be required to hand over their phone before an investigation will be pursued.  That's not how it's supposed to work.

Someone reporting a crime is not under suspicion, until or unless that changes then they can volunteer what they wish, but shouldn't be required to do any more than that.

Do you appreciate the chilling effect it's likely to have on the already extremely low rate of reporting?

 

I see no reason why the accused couldn't have anonymity provided until a verdict has been reached in many cases.

Edited June 5, 2019 by Cyclone

[Voice of reason]

1 hour ago, Cyclone said:

No, legally they don't, and there's no justification that they should be required to hand over their phone before an investigation will be pursued.  That's not how it's supposed to work.

Someone reporting a crime is not under suspicion, until or unless that changes then they can volunteer what they wish, but shouldn't be required to do any more than that.

Do you appreciate the chilling effect it's likely to have on the already extremely low rate of reporting?

 

I see no reason why the accused couldn't have anonymity provided until a verdict has been reached in many cases.

I think the point is that often the phone may contain compelling information as to whether the case should begin.

In some instances it can show communications between the parties that may indicate different scenarios, or from the victim to others that might also put the incident in different perspective.

I don't see it as being any more invasive, or much less so, than the other traumatic evidence that someone has to give. Surely it's a sensible step in the era where mobile communication is so ubiquitous? I must admit to having some concerns about the accuser not being willing to offer a phone for evidence, but also understand it could appear to cast doubt on their report, or snooping on other aspects of their life, but a lot of policing is about finding both sides of events and establishing validity of both versions.

It's a tricky situation, in an already horrendous one.

 

The anonymity of the accused is technically a different thread I suppose, but the two do interlink.

[Cyclone]

Surely the case begins because there is a report of a rape.  If the victim thinks that there is something on the phone to share then they can hand that information over.  If there's other information in texts or calls then the police can get it from the service provider or indeed from the phone of the accused.

 

I don't have any concerns at all about the victim not wanting to hand over their phone as a matter of course, it's highly inconvenient for them, it's likely to contain highly personal information that is totally unrelated to the case and it shouldn't be required in order for the police to start their enquiries.

[Voice of reason]

1 hour ago, Cyclone said:

Surely the case begins because there is a report of a rape.  If the victim thinks that there is something on the phone to share then they can hand that information over.  If there's other information in texts or calls then the police can get it from the service provider or indeed from the phone of the accused.

 

I don't have any concerns at all about the victim not wanting to hand over their phone as a matter of course, it's highly inconvenient for them, it's likely to contain highly personal information that is totally unrelated to the case and it shouldn't be required in order for the police to start their enquiries.

What if there were texts from the victim, to a third party discussing the evening in terms that cast doubt on the version of events? That would be very important information.

I don't think the discussion about the phone should prevent the investigation beginning though. It should form part of the ongoing investigation.

I want as many cases to go to court as possible, and the current number that do is horrendously low. I also think it's important that all information is available to the investigators. I don't see the need for phones to be handed in for prolonged periods, I would have thought it could be done very quickly, hours.

[Halibut]

6 minutes ago, Voice of reason said:

I don't see the need for phones to be handed in for prolonged periods, I would have thought it could be done very quickly, hours.

Then you're very naive.