>theguardian.com
>The new regulations will aim to improve the conviction rate with victims and vulnerable witnesses able to give evidence “in a room in court where it’s much less intimidating, where there are ground rules set by the judge”,
Thoughts, Sup Forums?
Other urls found in this thread:
theguardian.com
twitter.com
What's a cross examination? Like they examine a crucifix? I don't get it
It's where the prosecutor and defense and ask somebody on the stand questions.
>Thoughts, Sup Forums?
only have sex with women in your own home and if it is video taped
also; avoid university-educated women
It means getting grilled by the defense attorney. The attorneys usually try to catch them in a lie without coming off as huge assholes in front of a jury.
Basically if you get mugged/assaulted/burgled and are traumatised by the experience you have to turn up and speak out, even though you typically wouldn't need so since there's likely good enough evidence. Not a nice experience.
If you fake a rape you don't even have to turn up to court, even though it's often a crime where proof is completely absent and people can, and are, sent to prison on a testimony and absolutely nothing else. Now even that isn't adherent to the court system.
Obviously our legal system is not perfect when it comes to not fucking over victims even harder but demanding they waste their life and wellbeing on a retarded lawyer circus, but this idea is a can of worms.
Leaves, everyone.
Why is this bad? I was thinking they examine the pussy to see if they were raped that's why it's cancelled wow that's dumb
Good job britcucks
You wish you were Canadian
>no cross examination for a person that can potentially send you to jail on made-up pretense
wow such enlightened and progressive British judicial system
So how are you meant to prove that the person who made the claim is a lying slut if you cannot cross examine them?
Rape victims should be spared trials altogether. If a woman says someone raped her then just throw that person in jail for life.
it means their chances of being caught lying are reduced because the defence can't question them and reveal discrepancies in their story they've made up
I thought British law was based on common law. How can they bypass precedence like that?
>Thoughts, Sup Forums?
now if the intelligence agencies want to silence someone, they just pay a whore to accuse them of rape.
>see the cancer against Julian Assange
women were a mistake.
>the prosecution doesn't need to prove it's right
That does sound reasonable, women never lie anyways.
In a separate room? Okay.
Ground rules set by the judge? No.
Listen and belive you racist.
Because the UK has nogunz and norightz
>The new regulations will aim to improve the conviction rate
So "more people in jail" = good?
What? I thought you had the right to face your accuser.
Those accused of rape should be sent to prison without a trial, desu.
As long as they are white, of course it is.
no you idiot
it just means they don't get questioned in the courtroom
the defence can still question them
i'm kind of surprised this didn't already happen in some cases
in rape trials it's already the case that there is usually a barrier of some kind around the victim so they don't have be face to face with the accused
I thought so but the average post quality of canadians isn't just a meme, it's spectacularly noticeable that you have some real retards amongst your ranks.
Here in Canada I never had to appear in court to get a guy that groped me, a disabled teen, four years and a restraining order from my hometown. I did give testimony in a comfy room with hidden cameras though.
I believe that's what they're talking about. Using pre-recorded testimony to encourage somebody to go for a guilty plea. If they enter a not guilty plea, of course, the accused has a right to face their accuser.
It's a perfectly fine idea on balance.
Recently it's just the one guy though, Peterson hating leaf.
Then instead of raped, women end up raped, murdered, and dumped into a river.
Rape is worse than death, so that's good.
Wrong.
You're a dumb cunt, Canada is the most educated country in the world.
If you're male you have no right to disagree with me.
If you're female you have internalised misogyny if you disagree with me.
Looks like you're wrong, neckbeard fratbro.
I'm pretty sure they are going to bring back cross examination when the perp is a muslim shitskin. They are above raped women in the oppression olympics.
...
If you've never been raped before, then you have no right to make that claim.
If you have never been killed before, then you have no right to make that claim.
>Checkmate, we are the skeptic community now!
Also, if you've never experienced death before, you cannot make that claim either.
>improve the conviction rate
I assume that means increase the conviction rate.
Every woman has been raped because the patriarchy fucks her every day.
People ITT are massively misunderstanding this story.
Except for this guy which is the only person ITT that clearly understood the story You can still cross examine your accuser if you enter a not guilty plea.
They're trying to use pre-recorded evidence to force a guilty plea before a trial even starts for the sake of the victim.
Yes we do this in Canada, I REALLY don't have a source for you all, because I know this from first hand personal experience. Personally having benefited from this sort of thing, it made the entire experience nicer.
The court after getting me to give pre-recorded testimony, and never calling me to appear in court, also later asked me to fill out a victim impact statement to submit to the court when determining sentencing, but I never filled it out.
The idea is that some sex offenders get away with it because their accusers are afraid to appear in court, and appearing in court and getting badgered by some jew seems unfair when you're just trying to find justice after getting raped, so they're attempting to use pre-recorded testimony gathered in less intimidating circumstances to force guilty pleas.
K E K
Raped women who say rape is worse than death = all
Dead women who say death is worse than rape = none
>HOW DARE YOU NOT BELIEVE SOMEONE ON THEIR WORD ALONE
WTF, I FUCKING LOVE BIG BROTHER NOW!
You were groped by a disabled teen?
It is where they crucify the witness as a test of faith.
If you survive you're a witch.
reeee roasties gtfo my board
WHAT ABOUT ALL THE VICTIMS OF FALSE ACCUSATIONS !!!
WHY US THERE NO SEVERE PUNISHMENT FOR FALSE ACCUSATION, WHY IS THERE NO PUNISHMENT AT AAAAAAAAALLLL !!!???!!!
FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK !!!!
#KILLALLFEMINISTS !!!!
>The idea is that some sex offenders get away with it because their accusers are afraid to appear in court, and appearing in court and getting badgered by some jew seems unfair when you're just trying to find justice after getting raped, so they're attempting to use pre-recorded testimony gathered in less intimidating circumstances to force guilty pleas.
This really should only be allowed when there is clear evidence of rape, aka vaginal/anal tearing, semen samples and dna evidence linking the accused to the crime. Anything below this bar only lowers the standard of legal system and makes it easier for vindictive women to make falsified claims of rape.
You shouldn't change the definition of rape like that, otherwise it quickly becomes ambiguous.
>Dead women who say death is worse than rape = none
You're making a pretty terrible point here. Dead people are the most oppressed class of people because they literally have no voice. You're essentially saying that as long as no one alive is around to vocalize an argument, then that argument has no weight.
That implies that a valid solution to homelessness is to simply make them dead.
>Rape is worse than death
Is this a Trudeau quote or something? Fucking absurd.
Technically it's true, if you die you can go to heaven and be happy forever or you die in Hell and don't exist anymore. When you're raped you have to live with it
Your tears are all the evidence I need.
It's rape to have sex with a women who has been drinking in California.
The woman should be given a fine for drinking, alcohol is damaging to the woman because she will have a baby one day and can't drink. Only men should be allowed to drink but with that said drunkards cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven. If she was drunk she should be punished for it
>theguardian.com
>be British party slut
>regret fucking loser while drunk
>pretend to have been raped
>don't have to provide any evidence and no one is allowed to ask you any questions about it.
what could possibly go wrong?
>Breaking News: Trudeau on Rape victims: "Gas them for their own good. Its the Feminist thing to do eh"
is there anything more cringy than christian larping?
The bible says don't kill the woman for being raped, only kill the rapist.
Kikes are the ones LARPING
Jesus is the messiah but they pretend he never came to Earth, they're living in BC.
Bollocks. You don't have live with it unless it happens to you all the time. Just move on. Getting beaten up is worse than being raped, and you don't have to live with that either, unless there are long term injuries.
You have failed.
Bullshit.
Face your accuser.
Getting beat up is different, getting raped means you lost your virginity to someone who isn't your husband.
>The bible says don't kill the woman for being raped, only kill the rapist.
Actually in Leviticus it does say kill the rapist and the raped because if it was really rape she should have just screamed and the rape would have been prevented.
No one in those times would even want a raped woman because she wouldn't be a virgin. They were cucks like us today.
>we are the best at a sport that only a handful of countries care at all about
>brits BTFO
Haha, not to mention that we're not even going to be the best hockey country in a few years, since it's a sport for white people and our youth consists of a shitload of manlet East and South Asians
Correction: They weren't cucks like us today.
They would suffer the wiles of women.
>Larp larp larp larp larp larp larp larp larp larp
>They would suffer the wiles of women.
Correction : they wouldn't suffer the wiles of women
Sent from my HTC phone.
Thank god in america we have the constitution. Its called "the right to face your accuser"
Deuteronomy 22:25
But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die:
Making us the most jewed nation, as it is liberal kikes who run our postsecondary institutions.
I am in better financial standing than the vast majority of my High School friends who went to expensive universities after having only done a year of trade school. The minority who actually found good work in our horrible job market have a shitload of debt that they have to pay back.
>But
Deuteronomy 22:23-24 If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the girl because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man's wife. You must purge the evil from among you.
The bible does not support your modern day cuckery. Why is a woman alone with another man in the first place? She is either a slit or prostitute so stone her too.
>Deuteronomy 22:25
>But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die:
How often are these modern day "rapes" preformed in a field retard?
Not sure. This is a shitty change.
We no longer have the presumption of innocence anyway. The accusation is enough to ruin your life and sometimes land you in jail regardless of evidence.
Reminder that MGTOW exists for a reason.
It actually says this, I think you're using the NIV which is satanic
Deuteronomy 22:23-24
If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;
Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.
It's talking about adultery, notice that it just says""lie with her" in Deuteronomy 22:25 it says "force her and lie with her"
Jesus said to us though in regards to the adulterer being threatened with a stoning "let he who is without sin cast the first stone"
I do think that unreported rapes are a problem, but you can't put a man in prison for a crime he may or may not have committed without ample opportunity to make his case.
>The new regulations will aim to improve the conviction rate
isn't this exactly the opposite of what the justice system should be doing?
>The idea is that some sex offenders get away with it because their accusers are afraid to appear in court, and appearing in court and getting badgered by some jew seems unfair when you're just trying to find justice after getting raped, so they're attempting to use pre-recorded testimony gathered in less intimidating circumstances to force guilty pleas.
So what if the accuser is lying and doesn't want to turn up to court because they know their story doesn't stack up? The person accused deserves a fair trial as well, so they should both be cross-examined under the same circumstances. This is the base for common law: that you are treated fairly, and this change is implicitly more lenient towards the accuser than the accused.
How does putting on a video of a woman crying before the trial even begins not prejudice a case?
You start off having to prove your innocence.
Not in a world of guilty until proven innocent. ALL men must pay!
In Sweden they did away with trials alltogether for most rape cases. If a women fills out the forms that says you raped her if goes through a computer and it automatically sends a guilty sentence to the accused. Then a judge decides the punishment 2 to 5 business days later.
i. Maybe you weren't a virgin. Which is a lot* more probable.
ii. You go with it to finish the ordeal quicker (which a girl told me she did).
iii. Having sex is better than getting shit beat out of you.
The only reason it's rape is if he's ugly. If she turned around and it was Brad Pitt or Jude Law - they'd say g'head, love.
This is blown out of proportion I served on a jury just recently that used this they still get cross examined but all of the questions are asked by a single police officer through a ear piece in a 1 on 1 format rather than directly in front of the jury.
Having sex is only good if it's with your husband or wife, all forms of sex outside marriage are pretty much rape because God didn't consent to it.
>BRITAIN YES
A bad experience is worse than your life ending, not existing anymore, taken from family. I really hate people like you.
No no, you see it's not about getting a fair trial for both parties, it's about locking the accused up.
I mean, women don't lie right? Especially not about rape. Something so serious. She must be telling the truth, so no need to cross-examine her in the same circumstances as everyone else. Special treatment is in order. If you FEEL you can't stand up in court, you shouldn't have to. The man has to though. That's only fair, and we're talking about a fair trial.
>justice
>So what if the accuser is lying and doesn't want to turn up to court because they know their story doesn't stack up?
women can do no wrong in 2017.
>Feelings are more important than a fair trial.
KYS!
in the 1990 homie was exonerated. and that episode was a cautionary tale. In 2017 Homer would spend the next 15 years in prison, while lisa drops out of school and becomes a prostitute and bart deals drugs and marge becomes hopelessly depressed and maggie dies of neglect.
Progress.
>needing even more protection from fake rape claims
another twist of the dagger into men's skulls
The police wouldn't ask the same questions that a defence lawyer would ask. The police want the conviction rate to go up (unless the defendant is a muslim) so we are going to see a lot of innocent people locked up because of this.
From the mirror:
>Research has shown victims felt less pressure giving pre-trial evidence and that witnesses were better able to recall events.
>Better able to recall events.
Come on, that is fucking laughable.
"I wouldn't even rape her"
the guy was probably grilled for those 9 hours without food water and bathroom use, while the police twisted his arm trying to get a confession.
> where there are ground rules set by the judge
It's going to be judges having the power to stop some 50 year old pedo cross-examining a 5 year old little girl
Well duh, were the judges blind?
>rape culture doesn't exist
Here come the racists.
i wonder how many women get caught lying about the rape during the cross examination
i bet it's quite a few
Having gone through something similar to this, the police want you to plead guilty from day one, they're not there to give you a fair hearing.
They disregard anything that damages the accusers story and couldn't care less about your well being.
I used to think the justice system was fair, not anymore, it's so skewed it's disgusting.
can't tell if joking, or serious points on the autism spectrum barometer
> If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her
the entire point of that line there is it's consensual because the women didn't scream.
You don't understand the defence and prosecution each take turns asking questions through the officer until both are satisfied and then the recording is played back to the jury the person giving evidence still has to come to court to take the oath and verify their id.