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

[Guest makapaka]

2 hours ago, Cyclone said:

The defendant IS being investigated for a crime though.  Apologies the "is" in my previous should clearly be isn't.

 

The defendant isn't guilty, but being investigated.  The victim is NOT being investigated.

Correct but only on the assumption that they know who the actual victim is which isn’t always the case is it? 

 

Youre still applying a logic that says the defendant has less rights than the victim before you know if they’re guilty.

 

the only valid argument I’ve seen for not giving up phones is where people have said you don’t need them to get hold of data which if it’s the case make having the handset worthless - if that’s the case I would agree but if not I still believe meverything should be made available to establish the truth. 

Edited May 1, 2019 by makapaka

[Cyclone 10]

It's factually correct that the defendant has less rights than the victim even before conviction.

The victim has an ongoing right to privacy unless a court grants a warrant to seize something.  The defendant however having been arrested loses some rights, for example their phone WILL be seized and their records from phone companies, ISPs, etc, will (again with a warrant) be made available to the police.  In the case of the person reporting the crime it's unlikely that such a warrant will be granted unless the police can show the court a good reason for it.

 

You don't need to give a valid reason to not give up privacy.  The default is that you should not give up privacy.  Your argument is incredibly dangerous, it's the kind of logic that oppressive totalitarian regimes like to use for mass surveillance of their populace.

Edited May 1, 2019 by Cyclone

[Top Cats Hat 10]

4 hours ago, Cyclone said:

It is easily possible to manipulate that metadata though, if you've got any experience in IT.

However if they were sent somewhere then the records of that cannot be manipulated.

That's the point I am making.

 

Most of these cases aren't sophisticated fraud attempts but people who post or text unwise material then panic when they realise what a dumb move it was. Any attempts to alter this material in retrospect will not only undermine the case but could lead to a charge of Attempting to Pervert the Course of Justice which often carries a jail sentence.

[Cyclone 10]

1 minute ago, Top Cats Hat said:

That's the point I am making.

 

Most of these cases aren't sophisticated fraud attempts but people who post or text unwise material then panic when they realise what a dumb move it was. Any attempts to alter this material in retrospect will not only undermine the case but could lead to a charge of Attempting to Pervert the Course of Justice which often carries a jail sentence.

Yep, I was agreeing with you.

2 hours ago, willman said:

An alleged crime is being investigated. There are two parties involved  both of which need to be investigated for corroborating evidence or conflicts in evidence. Only investigating the accused smacks of the assumption of guilt by those investigating the crime.

 

Where exactly does 12 hours of "No comment" interviews get the police in any investigation without supporting evidence.

It isn't about victimising the victim any further it's about proving an offence beyond a reasonable doubt and locking somebody up for it.

 

 

 

That's simply not how policing or the law works is it.

 

We don't (as a matter of course) traumatise victims by treating them as suspects unless there is some reason to believe that they are lying.

 

It absolutely is about further victimising and traumatising the victim, something you seem to be entirely insensitive to.  You seem totally unconcerned that this will deter reports of such crimes, but happy that it might reduce the already tiny minority of false reports.

[willman 10]

2 minutes ago, Cyclone said:

Yep, I was agreeing with you.

That's simply not how policing or the law works is it.

 

We don't (as a matter of course) traumatise victims by treating them as suspects unless there is some reason to believe that they are lying.

 

It absolutely is about further victimising and traumatising the victim, something you seem to be entirely insensitive to.  You seem totally unconcerned that this will deter reports of such crimes, but happy that it might reduce the already tiny minority of false reports.

Well obviously you'll have googled that information as opposed to hearing and seeing actual real interviews being carried out,whilst typing up "Mr X was non responsive" "MrX responded with no comment" for the length of the interview.

 

The police have a role to play in investigations - as yet i've never seen or heard of a rape victim being accused of being dishonest  in  a police interview HOWEVER i have heard interviews where the accused was ripped to pieces(verbally) under the assumption of guilt by police officers and then had their life torn apart because of content on their phones.

 

There is nothing and i can be quite specific about this on anyones mobile phone that condones rape or assault - so forgive me if you think differently. Therefore why should it deter anyone.

 

 

[Top Cats Hat 10]

14 minutes ago, willman said:

Therefore why should it deter anyone.

Because it is a massive and unnecessary invasion of privacy of a victim at a time when they are already very vulnerable.

 

It will do little other than increase the under reporting of rape and other sexual offences.

[Cyclone 10]

25 minutes ago, willman said:

Well obviously you'll have googled that information as opposed to hearing and seeing actual real interviews being carried out,whilst typing up "Mr X was non responsive" "MrX responded with no comment" for the length of the interview.

 

The police have a role to play in investigations - as yet i've never seen or heard of a rape victim being accused of being dishonest  in  a police interview HOWEVER i have heard interviews where the accused was ripped to pieces(verbally) under the assumption of guilt by police officers and then had their life torn apart because of content on their phones.

 

There is nothing and i can be quite specific about this on anyones mobile phone that condones rape or assault - so forgive me if you think differently. Therefore why should it deter anyone.

 

 

You're leaping to wild conclusions I think.

 

I didn't have to google anything to understand how policing and interviews work at the moment.

 

The reasons for not wanting to hand over your phone when you're the victim have already been well explained to you, you simply don't want to accept them.

[willman 10]

6 minutes ago, Top Cats Hat said:

Because it is a massive and unnecessary invasion of privacy of a victim at a time when they are already very vulnerable.

 

It will do little other than increase the under reporting of rape and other sexual offences.

What is on anyones phone that would make them responsible for someones attack on them?

 

They currently have to hand over their clothes and have intimate examinations - do you seriously think handing over a phone that might have a sexy text on it is worse that what they already have to go through?

Just now, Cyclone said:

You're leaping to wild conclusions I think.

 

I didn't have to google anything to understand how policing and interviews work at the moment.

 

The reasons for not wanting to hand over your phone when you're the victim have already been well explained to you, you simply don't want to accept them.

Well you've never been present or seen a police interview on any case let alone a rape case that much is clear.

 

So all your presenting is your opinion ,which is just as valid as anyone elses - but it isn't  what really needs to happen in all police investigations.

[Cyclone 10]

Why do you keep asking about what is on the phone to justify rape?  Nobody has said there can or will be anything.

 

Who says I've never seen or been present in a police interview?

 

Am I wrong?  Because you've already agreed with me about how they work, you just felt the need to claim that I'd had to google it.

[willman 10]

 A remark was made on this thread that intimated that jurors and police could be swayed by whatever is on the mobile phone hence a reason for the victim not giving up their phone. They're subjected to far worse than phone records.

 

 

[Cyclone 10]

Yes, the defence often try to sway the jurors with spurious defences (which unfortunately often seem to work in this country) to do with the behaviour of the victim, their sexual proclivities, how promiscuous they are, how they were dressed, whether they were drinking.

Unfortunately a lot of people (possibly on juries) see some of these things as making it the fault of the victim, as if they're responsible for the behaviour of the rapist.

 

So legally there's nothing on a phone that might somehow excuse rape, by definition there is no excuse for rape, it's a crime, it's absolute, not conditional.  Unfortunately juries and judges are sometimes left behind in the 1950's and will exonerate someone because the defence bring an argument of the victim "leading them on" or they create doubt because some people view women who enjoy an active sexual life as somehow suspect.

[Top Cats Hat 10]

1 hour ago, willman said:

They currently have to hand over their clothes and have intimate examinations - do you seriously think handing over a phone that might have a sexy text on it is worse that what they already have to go through?

Forensic examination of clothing and other intimate examination is the only way to obtain certain evidence.

 

As has been repeated a number of times already, having the victim's phone is not the only way to obtain evidence of communications which may or may not aid the prosecution.

 

37 minutes ago, Cyclone said:

Unfortunately a lot of people (possibly on juries) see some of these things as making it the fault of the victim

Never mind juries, UK judicial history is littered with examples of judges and magistrates making inappropriate comments which attempt to blame the victim.