This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Sex Crimes: Why is the legal system failing
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
 Mapletree  Croydon 07 Feb 23 11.05pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by eaglesdare
Can't even say the word pedophile anymore! The lefty woke lot are calling it "minor attracted person" Which is disgusting, evil and disgraceful! Soon the age of "consent" will also be lowered so the "Pedophiles" won't be doing anything illegal! Sickening the times we live in! We already had a debate on that. A paedophile is attracted to prepubescent children. So the term is inappropriate for the vast majority of child sexual abuse cases. Try reading whilst you are off puking.
|
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
PalazioVecchio  south pole 07 Feb 23 11.09pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Mapletree
We already had a debate on that. A paedophile is attracted to prepubescent children. So the term is inappropriate for the vast majority of child sexual abuse cases. Try reading whilst you are off puking. seeking an appropriate terminology for a paedo ? how about 'piece of dogsh1t' ?
Kayla did Anfield & Old Trafford |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Badger11 Beckenham 08 Feb 23 8.08am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by becky
Literally, the only solution would be a written consent form with various boxes to be ticked as to precisely what is being consented to (straight sex, anal, bondage etc. etc) signed by both parties before or during foreplay. Would put rather a damper on the whole business in my opinion,but it would solve the problem. I don't think that will solve the issue. I believe that women have the right to say no at any point so a victim could simply say that after signing the form she changed her mind. There was a case a few years back where the victim agreed that she voluntary went back to the guy's flat stripped naked and engaged in mutual oral sex but withdraw her consent when he penetrated her. Not surprisingly the jury said not guilty because how on earth could you say with any confidence otherwise. We revere our jury system and yet on the case I was involved in I came away with a bad taste in my mouth. The police and the lawyers dumped the whole mess into the jury's lap and said you sort it out. I know that's how the system works but then those same people then moan about low conviction rates.
One more point |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| YT Oxford 08 Feb 23 8.20am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Badger11
I don't think that will solve the issue. I believe that women have the right to say no at any point so a victim could simply say that after signing the form she changed her mind. There was a case a few years back where the victim agreed that she voluntary went back to the guy's flat stripped naked and engaged in mutual oral sex but withdraw her consent when he penetrated her. Not surprisingly the jury said not guilty because how on earth could you say with any confidence otherwise. We revere our jury system and yet on the case I was involved in I came away with a bad taste in my mouth. The police and the lawyers dumped the whole mess into the jury's lap and said you sort it out. I know that's how the system works but then those same people then moan about low conviction rates. Not as bad a taste as the victim in your example though.
Palace since 19 August 1972. Palace 1 (Tony Taylor) Liverpool 1 (Emlyn Hughes) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| CrazyBadger Ware 08 Feb 23 9.35am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by becky
Literally, the only solution would be a written consent form with various boxes to be ticked as to precisely what is being consented to (straight sex, anal, bondage etc. etc) signed by both parties before or during foreplay. Would put rather a damper on the whole business in my opinion,but it would solve the problem. There's a Amazon Prime series "Upload", which shows someones vision of the future for comedy purposes... which has a similar system. Before Sex, both parties must 'Consent' on a smart device. In all honesty a system like this, however unappealing, is the only way you are going to navigate the "My Word vs yours", or the Grey Area/alcohol scenario.
"It was a Team effort, I guess it took all players working together to lose this one" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| mezzer Main Stand, Block F, Row 20 seat 1... 09 Feb 23 10.39am |
|
|---|---|
|
I had the misfortune to be called for jury service in the first week of 2022 and got the case I really, really didn't want. 24 charges of child sex abuse and cruelty. We, the jury, found the defendant guilty on 22 of the 24 charges and he got a 27 year sentence which the judge said would have been 140 years if all the sentences were to have run concurrently. As a juror I vowed to try to be fair, however repulsive the case. This is why myself and the others found him not guilty on two of the charges because in all honesty I couldn't be sure if he was guilty from the evidence provided (even though it seemed highly likely he was). Circumstances are never completely straightforward - the children in question were a mixture of the defendent's own and those who were the product of the relationship the children's mother had with someone else who she subsequently killed when the youngest was a month old leaving 6 children effectively homeless. They were sent to live with the defendent at short notice who was woefully ill-equipped to cope. This in no way excuses his behaviour and he deserves every minute of his sentence and my heart still goes out to those poor kids and the situation they were in. The main thing that I took away was the fact that the social services and police had been involved with the new "family" over a number of years yet it was all allowed to unfold. It struck me that every report made by the social services was produced by a different person. There was no continuity in evidence. You could argue that the legal system got there in the end, but how much irreperable damage has been done to those kids in the meantime? There's no simple solution, I know.
Living down here does have some advantages. At least you can see them cry. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
 becky over the moon 09 Feb 23 4.17pm |
 |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Badger11
I don't think that will solve the issue. I believe that women have the right to say no at any point so a victim could simply say that after signing the form she changed her mind. There was a case a few years back where the victim agreed that she voluntary went back to the guy's flat stripped naked and engaged in mutual oral sex but withdraw her consent when he penetrated her. Not surprisingly the jury said not guilty because how on earth could you say with any confidence otherwise. We revere our jury system and yet on the case I was involved in I came away with a bad taste in my mouth. The police and the lawyers dumped the whole mess into the jury's lap and said you sort it out. I know that's how the system works but then those same people then moan about low conviction rates. I agree with you that it wouldn't solve the change of mind at the last minute issue, but at least it would eliminate those cases where the man is accused of luring a woman back to his room/place and raping her - it would at least show that there was mutual consent at some point, and that she was aware of this - although deciding what happened after that would be back to the he said/she said debate, it may save someone's reputation from the shredder.
A stairway to Heaven and a Highway to Hell give some indication of expected traffic numbers |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post | Board Moderator |
|
| Badger11 Beckenham 09 Feb 23 4.51pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by becky
I agree with you that it wouldn't solve the change of mind at the last minute issue, but at least it would eliminate those cases where the man is accused of luring a woman back to his room/place and raping her - it would at least show that there was mutual consent at some point, and that she was aware of this - although deciding what happened after that would be back to the he said/she said debate, it may save someone's reputation from the shredder. Yup sorry Becky I shouldn't have been so negative. You are correct it would help although as you say kinda takes the romance out of it.
One more point |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| becky over the moon 09 Feb 23 8.19pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Badger11
Yup sorry Becky I shouldn't have been so negative. You are correct it would help although as you say kinda takes the romance out of it. As far as I can see, in a lot of these cases where it ends up in court, romance didn't have much to do with it in the first place
A stairway to Heaven and a Highway to Hell give some indication of expected traffic numbers |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post | Board Moderator |
|
| YT Oxford 09 Feb 23 10.19pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by becky
As far as I can see, in a lot of these cases where it ends up in court, romance didn't have much to do with it in the first place Well said. Edited by YT (09 Feb 2023 10.20pm)
Palace since 19 August 1972. Palace 1 (Tony Taylor) Liverpool 1 (Emlyn Hughes) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
cryrst  The garden of England 10 Feb 23 5.12am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by YT
Not as bad a taste as the victim in your example though. OMG
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| YT Oxford 10 Feb 23 9.28am |
|
|---|---|
|
We have a criminal law system where everyone is presumed to be innocent unless and until proven guilty. That is a fundamental principle regardless of the crime that has been alleged and it's a valuable protection for the individual against the state. I would probably be classed as an authoritarian, however even I feel uncomfortable when people start asking: "how can we can get more convictions for this, that or the other crime?" - sex crimes in this example. The only way to get a conviction is to present evidence of a crime that is sufficient to convince a jury "beyond reasonable doubt" that the person committed it. Period. Frustrating though this must be for victims.
Palace since 19 August 1972. Palace 1 (Tony Taylor) Liverpool 1 (Emlyn Hughes) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / RegisterNew users
Registration is now on our new message board
Existing users
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
Sponsors
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.