"MCP"  wrote in message 
news:JC73j.135946$7_4.67257@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7116336.stm
>
> Juries in rape trials are to be given information about the way an attack 
> can affect a victim's behaviour - in an attempt to increase conviction 
> rates.
> Only 5.7% of reported rapes in England and Wales currently end in 
> conviction.

And most of that 5.7% were framed.


>
> One common problem is a victim is doubted when a jury cannot understand 
> why she did not attempt to escape the attack or took some time to report 
> it.
>
> The move to explain such reactions is among measures expected to be 
> announced later by Solicitor General Vera Baird.

They should also explain the motivation of females who make false 
allegations. Revenge? Excuse for an affair? Extortion? Spite? Insanity? PMS? 
Or just plain female conduct?


>
> Another measure, which has already been approved, will enable prosecutors 
> to use a victim's videotaped police statement or interview as their main 
> evidence at the trial.

They can submit anything they like but it's proof of nothing. A statement is 
not proof.
>
> It means victims will spend less time in court having to relive their 
> ordeal.
>
> It is thought that about 80% of rapes are never reported,


What you "think" or imagine  means nothing. It's fantasy.

 and about a third
> of those reported are not recorded by the police.

It means the cops don't believe them and probably have dealt with the female 
before and know she's made false allegations before.


>
> Cameron's call
>
> And in eight out of 10 rape cases, victim and suspect are known to each 
> other.

What does that mean? In 10% of these cases the man accused never even met 
the female and he was just some innocent person she pointed a finger at. He 
may have just been some guy living down the street that she decided to 
accuse. This happens all the time. Cops catch them in a lie and then 
prosecute them. These females do it for attention without any regard for the 
damage they do.



>
> Two weeks ago Conservative leader David Cameron called for tougher 
> sentences for rapists, saying too many men "think they can get away with 
> it".

Tougher sentences will only mean less convictions   lol

>
> Rape victims are often not believed because they did not respond to an 
> attack in the way juries expected.
>
> For example, victims may not try to escape or immediately report what has 
> happened and some stay with partners who have raped them because the are 
> scared to leave.
>
> This prompted the plans to inform jury members of psychological reactions 
> to forms of abuse.
>
> A group of judges, doctors and academics will determine over the next few 
> months exactly what information should be given in rape trials and how it 
> can be delivered.

This is entirely wrong. The reason we have juries is so that average laymen 
decide cases based on evidence, common sense and their life experience. We 
use the "reasonable man" rule and judge what a reasonable man of average 
intelligence would do in a certain situation, not what a judge, academic or 
doctor would do. It's nonsense to believe that a female where be to scared 
to report a rape since they can be very aggressive when they want to be. 
Females who don't immediately report rape have an ulterior motive. There's 
no physical evidence so they wait a few weeks when they know it will just be 
their word without any proof. I'd make it a Law that rape must be reported 
within 1 hour and it must be reported to a hospital and the police.

>
> However, the government ruled out using expert witnesses.

They can't because then the defence will use "expert" witnesses. And since 
no one is really an expert or is this an exact science, it will come back to 
he said she said.



>
> IOW a licence for yet more liars
>
>
> -- 
> "Women worry about the future until they get married.
> Men don't worry about the future until they get married.
>
>