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

[Cyclone]

I illustrated what always demanding the phone of someone reporting a rape means.

 

And you know it can be evidenced, I provided you plenty of evidence, you just don't like it.

 

"You don't see the problem" - yes, well that summarised your argument nicely.

[Guest makapaka]

1 hour ago, Cyclone said:

I illustrated what always demanding the phone of someone reporting a rape means.

 

And you know it can be evidenced, I provided you plenty of evidence, you just don't like it.

 

"You don't see the problem" - yes, well that summarised your argument nicely.

Yes it does.

 

you (and others seemingly) seem to have placed a massive amount of importance on the non evidential content of a mobile phone and minimal amount of important on potentially evidential content.

 

I think that’s the wrong way round personally.

 

 

[Cyclone]

Placed a large amount of importance on privacy, and also placed a large amount of importance on not reducing the already low rate of reporting for this crime.  You keep ignoring this second one, as if it might go away if you don't acknowledge it.

 

The evidential content you're talking about means investigating the victim.  They aren't under investigation though, aren't accused or suspected of a crime and so there is no basis for investigating them.

[ECCOnoob]

25 minutes ago, Cyclone said:

They aren't under investigation though, aren't accused or suspected of a crime and so there is no basis for investigating them.

Well they should be. They are making very serious allegations against someone which could result in them being imprisoned for years, decades or even life.

 

If there is any doubt  raised by the defendant then it is absolutely right that  the alleged victim is also investigated -  including the contents of their prime communication devices

 

Fair and just trials involve evidence from both sides.  Fair and just trials involves both parties having the opportunity to present their case.  Fair and just trials involved a level playing field.

 

Why does the alleged victim have some right to privacy when the alleged accused can be named and exposed without consequence.  

 

Any evidence the police choose to see from either party should be a given.  No ifs. No buts. 

Edited June 8, 2019 by ECCOnoob

[Cyclone]

Someone who reports a crime "should be" under investigation.  Right.  An already massively under reported crime will get reported even less, is that your intention?

 

If there is reasonable doubt as to the veracity of the report, then yes, that should be investigated.  That isn't the same as always requiring victims to hand over their form or refusing to investigate, not even in the same ballpark.

42 minutes ago, ECCOnoob said:

Why does the alleged victim have some right to privacy when the alleged accused can be named and exposed without consequence.  

 

Because reporting a crime doesn't somehow remove your rights...

[Guest makapaka]

1 hour ago, Cyclone said:

Someone who reports a crime "should be" under investigation.  Right.  An already massively under reported crime will get reported even less, is that your intention?

 

If there is reasonable doubt as to the veracity of the report, then yes, that should be investigated.  That isn't the same as always requiring victims to hand over their form or refusing to investigate, not even in the same ballpark.

Because reporting a crime doesn't somehow remove your rights...

Do you think the police don’t investigate the claims of the person reporting the crime?

[Cyclone]

My statement was that reporting a crime doesn't remove your rights, including the right to privacy.  It's a fact isn't it.  That's a human right (according to european human rights law) and it isn't removed by reporting a crime.

 

Investigating the report is not the same as investigating the reportee is it.

[Guest makapaka]

2 minutes ago, Cyclone said:

My statement was that reporting a crime doesn't remove your rights, including the right to privacy.  It's a fact isn't it.  That's a human right (according to european human rights law) and it isn't removed by reporting a crime.

 

Investigating the report is not the same as investigating the reportee is it.

There has to be an element of it to see if there is anything to investigate though doesn’t there?

 

if I ring the police now and say I’ve just had a brand new Ferrari stolen from my front drive do you think they just give me a crime number and tell me they’ll start looking for it straight away.

 

im not in anyway comparing the two crimes either - just addressing the last part of your post.

[Cyclone]

They wouldn't seize your mobile phone or other personal property would they.

 

Nor is it at all comparable.

 

If they are called to hospital where you're in a bed having been beaten badly, they won't investigate YOU when you tell them that you were assaulted.

[Guest makapaka]

10 minutes ago, Cyclone said:

They wouldn't seize your mobile phone or other personal property would they.

 

Nor is it at all comparable.

 

If they are called to hospital where you're in a bed having been beaten badly, they won't investigate YOU when you tell them that you were assaulted.

Of course they would.

 

it would be a different kind of investigation- dealt with a lot more sympathetically and with understanding of the persons condition but the police would still try and establish what happened and why as it could have a bearing on any final prosecution.

 

 

 

 

Edited June 9, 2019 by makapaka