Challenging the narrative.

Corroboration and rape/sexual assault.

At present in Scottish law we require corroboration for a conviction.

The importance of corroboration is a unique feature of Scots criminal law. A cornerstone of Scots law, the requirement for corroborating evidence means at least two different and independent sources of evidence are required in support of each crucial fact before a defendant can be convicted of a crime. - wikipedia

For example forensic evidence and the testimony of the victim are two separate and independent sources. So is CCTV video footage and the testimony of the victim, or the testimony of the victim and a guilty plea by the defendant. etc

There is a movement to undermine this cornerstone of Scots law and negate corroboration specifically led by organisations like Rape Crisis Scotland which see it as obstructive. However fierce opposition from the legal profession which feared more miscarriages of justice have effectively put an end to this, at least for the time being.

However I understand that in places like England and Canada and the USA corroboration is not needed and that one can be accused of rape and prosecuted, for aggravated or historical rape with anonymity being guaranteed to the accuser/victim. The rationale for this being that rape is a special case and that victims often need anonymity to come forward being traumatised by the event even many years later.

After watching some videos of the personal testimony of some real rape victims (in contrast to those who made false allegations) they appeared to me to be somehow able to rise above it and described their experience in an almost matter of fact way. This of course challenges the mainstream narrative and leaves one open to the almost obligatory label of rape apologist so beloved by a certain contributor to this forum.

Does the forum feel that corroboration is a good and valid system to establish guilt or an obstruction to justice?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Corroboration and rape/sexual assault.

At present in Scottish law we require corroboration for a conviction.

The importance of corroboration is a unique feature of Scots criminal law. A cornerstone of Scots law, the requirement for corroborating evidence means at least two different and independent sources of evidence are required in support o ...[text shortened]... l that corroboration is a good and valid system to establish guilt or an obstruction to justice?

Depends which end you're finding yourself, I'm sure.

Robbie,

about victims you seem to know more than all other humans: So how do you know which testimonies were from real victims and which not?
To me it seems that you rate People higher who can talsk matter-of fact about something, which is psychologically spoken, a tendency to dissociate. That could be one criteria for traumatization. Nothing more.

The Problem with corrobation in rape cases is that rape is a question of Intention.
So the victim has no Intention of sexual intercourse with the offender. The offender forced in some way the intercourse anyway.

Now in a 1 on 1 Situation there is only the testimony of both People. Sometimes the fact of the intercourse will be in question. That could be corrobated if the victim acted fast...

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Corroboration and rape/sexual assault.

At present in Scottish law we require corroboration for a conviction.

The importance of corroboration is a unique feature of Scots criminal law. A cornerstone of Scots law, the requirement for corroborating evidence means at least two different and independent sources of evidence are required in support o ...[text shortened]... l that corroboration is a good and valid system to establish guilt or an obstruction to justice?

That the victims who are prepared to talk on camera about their ordeal are able to do so matter of factly is a function of their personality and possibly distance from the event, rather than a function of veracity. That a victim is not able to do so should not be regarded as implying that her evidence is false, how well different people cope with a traumatic event is not uniform.

Originally posted by Ponderable
Robbie,

: So how do you know which testimonies were from real victims and which not?
To me it seems that you rate People higher who can talsk matter-of fact about something, which is psychologically spoken, a tendency to dissociate. That could be one criteria for traumatization. Nothing more.

The Problem with corrobation in rape cases is that rape ...[text shortened]... act of the intercourse will be in question. That could be corrobated if the victim acted fast...

About victims you seem to know more than all other humans - drivel. I have not claimed to know anything more than anyone else.

So how do you know which testimonies were from real victims and which not?

One women claimed that a police officer sexually assaulted her. When she was confronted with the video evidence of the entire event which unknown to her was being recorded by the police camera she recanted her testimony, That's how I know in her particular case. There was according to the Guardian 109 prosecutions for false rape in the UK last year and I am sure that if I waded through the court transcripts I could find out that they were false accusations. Is that enough for you to be getting on with?

I am not sure what your blather about rating people higher is all about and your quackery makes no sense. I suspect that real rape victims spoke in an almost matter of fact way because of some alleged trauma but because they had no agenda to prove, it happened to them and that was enough in itself. If you want to attribute this matter of fact to trauma then be my guest because you wont be the first whacko to ascribe psychological phenomena where none appears to exists in reality. The young women did not appear traumatised to me, infact I think they were able to rise above their horrendous experiences.

Intent is not a problem of corroboration. Even if there was intent it could still be corroborated. Corroboration is to prevent false accusation. You do agree that there have been not a few false accusations of rape do you not?

How do I know a false allegation of sexual assault?
YouTube

What a real rape victim sounds like
YouTube

Originally posted by DeepThought
That the victims who are prepared to talk on camera about their ordeal are able to do so matter of factly is a function of their personality and possibly distance from the event, rather than a function of veracity. That a victim is not able to do so should not be regarded as implying that her evidence is false, how well different people cope with a traumatic event is not uniform.

Your text is valid. I saw two entirely independent accounts of young women talking about their experience. One young women spoke about metal plates that she had inserted in her face because her bone was too fragile after her horrendous experience. Another spoke of coming home and seeing her sister stabbed and lying in a pool of blood. Her killer still present then proceeded to rape and strangle her. She only survived because he thought she was dead. How traumatised do you need to be before it becomes a matter of fact? How far removed from the event? No one is implying that trauma is evidence that an accusation is false but false accusations are made.

None of these young women needed a transcripted lawyers text either.

YouTube - Kristie Reed, notice the scars on her neck from when her attacker Paul Powel attempted to kill her.

What is the conviction rate in Scotland for accusations of rape, and what is the rate of not-guilty rulings that have only the victim's word as evidence? Comparison to similar demographic groups might be meaningful.

Originally posted by JS357
What is the conviction rate in Scotland for accusations of rape, and what is the rate of not-guilty rulings that have only the victim's word as evidence? Comparison to similar demographic groups might be meaningful.

Yes it might be. Will check it out.

Its complicated, the Scottish government winded the definition of rape and we have seen more victims coming froward. Ironically one of the reasons cited was due to high-profile abuse scandals such as the Jimmy Savile case and Operation Yewtree which is an extension of that and considered somewhat of a fiasco. More people have been falsely accused then have actually been prosecuted, some of them numerous times, but thats another story.

Rather interestingly we have seen a 13 per cent rise in those being convicted of rape and attempted rape and a 15 per cent rise in sexual assault. However the figures also show that the highest rate of not-guilty verdicts were in rape and attempted rape cases at 37 per cent.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/sex-crimes-convictions-in-scotland-soar-by-a-fifth-1-3635615

This is extraordinary for we have three verdicts in Scotland, guilty, not guilty and not proven, meaning that 'we think you did it but we cannot prove it.'