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

[JamesR123 0]

On 16/05/2019 at 16:40, Top Cats Hat said:

Himmler tried that with the SS.

 

Where is he now?

The issue with I have with the SS certainly wasn't the lack of search warrant requirement.

 

You seem to have some odd priorities

[Cyclone 10]

1 hour ago, makapaka said:

You said it had already been withdrawn?

I got it wrong.

[Joseph D 0]

On 15/05/2019 at 08:07, Cyclone said:

Her phone wasn't mentioned.

 

What was mentioned were a number of calls and texts.  The texts would be available on his phone and from the network operator, but more importantly.

 

When it became clear that there were problems with her story, only then is appropriate for her to become a target of AN investigation (not the same investigation) into making a false report, at which point perhaps seizing her phone is proportional.

 

Absolutely not.  Unless your intent is to deter people from making reports.

I think the point here is that the potential consequences of someone being wrongly sentenced to many years behind bars should be balanced against the inconvenience of being required to disclose one's private matters to an investigation officer. 

[Cyclone 10]

11 hours ago, Joseph D said:

I think the point here is that the potential consequences of someone being wrongly sentenced to many years behind bars should be balanced against the inconvenience of being required to disclose one's private matters to an investigation officer. 

The potential for discouraging reports of a crime that is already massively under reported should be be balanced against the very small risk of false reports having been made.

 

And to pretend that the problem is inconvenience is to dismiss the reality of what phones mean to some people and the information that they contain.  It's also not just to the investigating officer is it, there have been examples of information incorrectly being released to the defence, including and up to personal details and the address of the victim being released to the defendant!

Edited June 4, 2019 by Cyclone

[ECCOnoob 1,020]

1 hour ago, Cyclone said:

The potential for discouraging reports of a crime that is already massively under reported should be be balanced against the very small risk of false reports having been made.

 

And to pretend that the problem is inconvenience is to dismiss the reality of what phones mean to some people and the information that they contain.  It's also not just to the investigating officer is it, there have been examples of information incorrectly being released to the defence, including and up to personal details and the address of the victim being released to the defendant!

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.

[Halibut 12]

1 hour ago, ECCOnoob said:

 

 

The accused is stripped bare, torn apart and named and shamed through the court process 

Not as much as the victim.

[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 10]

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 0]

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 10]

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 0]

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 10]

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