This isn’t a “gap in the law” at all: it’s protection against incriminating yourself. It’s especially horrible that police are trying to push those involved in sexual assault trials to give up their liberties…
So someones life should be ruined if you falsely accuse them simply because you shouldnt be allowed to incriminate yourself?
Imagine if the person raped committed a different crime, unrelated to the rape, for which there was evidence of that on their phone.
In order to report the rape, they have to self incriminate themself for that crime as well? In this scenario any drug user, prostitute or other criminal has no protection from the law against being raped.
The issue is that people don't always know what information is relevant / they think stuff is too minor to mention.
You wouldn't go to a doctors appointment and then say my body is private you cant examine me and expect them to go off just the info you provide. If the doctor asks to stick his finger up your rear to check your prostate you don't say er no thanks that's too private. You assume he has a good medical reason that he wants to do that and you let him confirm that you are healthy.
If you don't want your doctor to stick his finger up your butt, then that's exactly what you do. They don't have a right to finger your prostate, even though it might be beneficial to you.
If you don't want a medical procedure, even if it would be beneficial to you, you can refuse it. It is your right (at least in the US).
Kinda hard to feel sorry for a criminal being unable to report a crime.....
You don’t feel sympathy for sex workers, who in many places are unable to report being assaulted?
Your example is having something you stole stolen from you. That’s not the same as doing something illegal, and having a completely different crime done to you. “I was jaywalking, and someone robbed me when i arrived on the other side of the street”. I can’t report it because I would have to explain why I was in the middle of the street without having walked past the shops on that side.
I do, but then again, I don't consider sex workers criminals.
I thought we were discussing why society would want to incentivize (or at least not disincentive) reporting a crime, even if the reporter is themselves a criminal. The idea is to eliminate at least one act of criminality instead of none.
You’re argument seems to be: people who commit crimes shouldn’t expect protection under the law from other crimes. And when it was pointed out that not all crimes are equal, your reply is “but I don’t consider some of those things as crimes.”
The parent answered "You don’t feel sympathy for sex workers, who in many places are unable to report being assaulted?" -- as if that category was what the grantparent meant by "criminals".
It was obvious to me that this was not what the grandparent meant, and I chimed in to say that one can still find it "hard to feel sorry for a criminal being unable to report a crime" while still feeling sorry for a prostitute that can't report a rape.
It's easy to speak of "criminals" casually without including (into your concept of them) large categories of people that the law might still consider "criminals" (eg. prostitute, a teen that did some weed, a guy who hacked into a website for fun, somebody who gasp pirated some music, etc.).
That's orthogonal to what protection criminals should get or not. I can support the rights of a criminal (to a fair trial etc) without feeling sorry for them. I don't find feeling "sorry" necessary to support people's rights.
>You’re argument seems to be: people who commit crimes shouldn’t expect protection under the law from other crimes.
No, my comment meant to convey (a) that the grandparent's point that "Kinda hard to feel sorry for a criminal being unable to report a crime" is not some bizarre cruel statement, and it doesn't necessarily have to do with some special cases of legally considered "criminals" that are more like victims themselves like a prostitute.
What I didn't like was the uncharitable interpretation of the grandparent's comment.
Official definitions (like etymologies) are not really relevant to actual language (though they are relevant to court).
It's the typical intended use / understanding of a term (as used casually), which can even change between contexts even when used by the same person, that matters.
Yeah, so a second crime was solved too. That's bad because?
Could this serve as an incentive for less crime?
Frivolity aside, "raping criminals" doesn't seem a very viable endeavor. They are, you know, criminals to begin with, and they, or their criminal friends, can perhaps do your head in...
(Plus, blackmailing a criminal with evidence of their crime, sometimes for sex too, has happened since time immemorial - even between corrupt policemen and criminals-, it's not something uniquely enabled by mobile phones).
Was this sarcasm, or are you actually suggesting that criminals should fear extrajudicial "justice" of having crimes committed against them and being unable to report them?
Yeah, it does mean crime becomes carte blanche to do against criminals of a certain caliber. But that's the consequence of deciding to live one's life outside the law.
If the crimes discussed on the phone are trivia in relation to rape (e.g. shop lifting, drug use) I highly doubt the police would bother prosecuting those crimes. How many minors who were raped while.drunk got charged with consu ing alcohol underage? I don't know of any, and the outrage over doing so would be immense.
But the evidence needs to be gathered, and if an accuser is unwilling to cooperate, there is very little the police can do in terms of gathering that evidence.
It's like when a known drug dealer gets shot they just figure it was a rival dealer and/or he had it coming so they don't spend more than the minimum time investigating it. Ditto for a hooker who gets raped. They tend to see that as just one of the risks in that business.
Almost everyone has something to hide (for example, I may or may not have software on my computer that I didn’t quite followed the licensing terms for), and they shouldn’t be denied the right to a fair trial for something unrelated because of this.
Do you have any evidence that prostitutes who are raped do not have their crime investigated to the same extent as any other victim?
https://www.cps.gov.uk/publication/cps-policy-prosecuting-ca...
> We are aware that there are myths and stereotypes surrounding the offence of rape. Examples of such myths include:
[...]
> prostitutes cannot be raped.
> Prosecutors who deal with rape cases are taught about them as part of their specialist training. We will not allow these myths and stereotypes to influence our decisions and we will robustly challenge such attitudes in the courtroom.
Here's an article from 2011 suggesting that changes in attitudes in police meant more prostitutes felt able to report rape: https://www.economist.com/britain/2011/01/20/in-from-the-col...
Well, empirical reality is enough.
Unless people live in some middle/upper middle class bubble, and have seldom or never met and talked with prostitutes, policemen, people in everyday contact with either group, etc, they know that this exactly is the case.
That's a 2011 article about a change in mentality in a single country, and with still measly little statistical increase (even if positive). And it doesn't even touch on what happens afterwards, and the rates of convictions in each category. If anything, the article negates the question (it started getting somewhat better in 2011 -- which already means it wasn't anywhere near on parity as per the question).
The country that is the topic of discussion in this thread and the submitted article.
But if the police are not able to get at all the relevant evidence, it is difficult to investigate.
I can see several reasons why women would tell the truth to the police but not to friends; fear of reprisal being one.
Phone data is one possible source of evidence and it should be considered alongside all the other evidence to determine whether the accused person is guilty. By refusing to hand over that evidence, rape victims deny police and prosecutors evidence that may be vital to making a case, which obviously makes it less likely that a prosecution will go forward. You can't convict someone with no evidence.
I can certainly understand how it would make the accuser uncomfortable, but that has to be balanced against the rights of the accused to a fair trial where all available evidence is considered.
Where I disagree is that her messages were proof she lied to police about the rape. She may well have been telling the truth to the police and lying to her friends -- why aren't people leaving that open as a possibility.