Shays Given Tim Flowers

it's been a while since I look at offence specific attrition rates but the MOJ publishes them from time to time. You're more likely to get away with a sex offence than most offences but then that's because 90% are just one persons word against another.

'Statistics show that while the conviction ratio for child sex offences has fallen from 67% to 60% in the last two years those found guilty of all criminal offences in England and Wales has remained steady at 83%.' Telegraph in 2015. 'Conviction rates for sexual offences plummeted faster than for any other type of crime last year, official figures have revealed. Victim support groups said the fall of 6 per cent to just 55 per cent was “startling” and warned it could have a major impact on the willingness of victims to come forward.' Telegraph in 2014

I'm not trying to be a dick here it's genuinely interesting to talk about. So we're talking generally about sex cases, typically people (including rapists) will run consent. So how can DNA take the case any further in such a scenario? Court of appeal says medical evidence is corroborative but not diagnostic of rape so what sort of supporting evidence are you envisaging? Like I say genuinely curious. Unfortunately, within a relationship the consent defence can succeed, it's a major flaw in the system but I don't see a way around it. But if a woman fights back, sustains injuries etc, as does the accused there's obviously effective support for the allegation. Admmissable use of previous bad character pertaining to sexual assaults etc. Worryingly it succeeds outside of relationships. It's a really tricky one. The law is already disproportionately stacked in favour of complainants.

Probably not a god example but it does exist. The attrition rate in rape cases is around 6/10 i.e. 6 cases in 10 result in not guilty verdicts.

I'm not trying to be a dick here it's genuinely interesting to talk about. So we're talking generally about sex cases, typically people (including rapists) will run consent. So how can DNA take the case any further in such a scenario? Court of appeal says medical evidence is corroborative but not diagnostic of rape so what sort of supporting evidence are you envisaging? Like I say genuinely curious.

Reasonable doubt both ways?

So essentially, in any sex case unless there are what third party witnesses/evidence the person can never be convicted? That cannot be right.

Whilst I agree with the bit about a burden, isn't the flip side that you effectively advocate a system where one persons word against another will never result in a conviction?

A korea derby would be good.

What will have happened is that boy gave a statement to the police, or have spoken to the police. The prosecution will not have relied on his evidence and therefore unless he says 'oh yeah sure I want to come to Court and answer questions about how I threatened to rape someone' the only option the Defence has is to summons him.

The real problem seems to be what he said at interview and what he said in text. Can't make a silk purse out of a sows ear.

Well the relevance is that people who know her didn't believe her. But really people shouldn't be giving their opinion on the truthfulness of the allegation.

Some of the stuff in this thread. That school boy saying i'll rape you, that guy making a video of young children singing the Johnson song. Fuck me.

Im sure Sunderland took a pragmatic view of the situation. It seems clear they were aware of the evidence and the likely pleas. They could have sacked him for gross misconduct there and then. Obviously that would have meant he couldn't have assisted the club on the pitch. I suspect that they kept his employment ongoing for footballing activities but you would imagine, from a legal liability point of view they limited his non-playing roles at the club.

he's got the pigment for it.

The direction they are given regarding reasonable doubt is that 'so they you are sure'. Think of it this way, if you have a jigsaw puzzle but there a lot of pieces missing can you still tell what the picture is of ?

Well with human interpretation that will always be a problem. Human interpretation is also a strength. Is it perfect, no. FWIW I think you're at least just as likely to get a jury that convicts for the wrong reasons.

I think he will be deemed credible about pleading on the day. As shitty as it is one can understand why he did it. Maximise earnings before he's finished.

You know you can get very good barristers for free right. In most cases if the prosecution were sufficiently resourced and the police had the resources to investigate properly nobody would ever be acquitted. The burden is exactly what it ought to be.

This is what I've been asking for days. Suppose the jury must just decide who to side with in all these paedophile cases where the only witness is the victim... I honestly don't know. It's a beauty contest, if they don't like him they will pot him.

Has to be the worst euphemism ever, closely followed by 'privates'. And 'fairy', now that would have been very creepy http://s7.postimg.org/n0fn5wv6z/image.jpg

Yeah, I guess otherwise there's nothing to counter her testimony, and you can't really just rely on the prosecution not having proven its case. But man, the feeling leading up to him getting on the stand could not have been a great one. The I agree with 99% of the Prosecution case but trust me, that 1% just straight up didn't happen defence.