Rape juries to hear more about men’s sexual history to increase chance of conviction

Alison Saunders, the Director of Public Prosecutions, has told prosecutors to focus on the behaviour of men leading up to alleged rapes, rather than just the incident itself

Outrageous. Alison Saunders was one of our Toxic Feminists of the Month.

If everyone who read this gave us just £1 – or even better, £1 monthly – we could change the world. Click here to make a difference. Thanks.

About Mike Buchanan

I'm a men's human rights advocate, writer, and publisher. My primary focus is leading the political party I launched in 2013, Justice for Men & Boys (and the women who love them). I still work actively on two campaigns I launched in early 2012, Campaign for Merit in Business and the Anti-Feminism League. In 2014 I launched The Alternative Sexism Project, aiming to raise public understanding that the sexism faced by men and boys has far more grievous consequences than the sexism faced by women and girls.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
  • Craig Martin

    But they don’t want to use a womans sexual history to demonstrate promiscuous behaviour?

    That’s the real sexism in society today!

  • Groan

    Well this looks very much like “revenge” for the fact that in the Ched Evans case it proved important to have evidence of previous and subsequent incidents in the complainants life. This was made more difficult by the complainants anonymity, so witnesses would not know they may have a contribution to the case, and the Court’s reluctance (because of Guidance to judges) to allow such evidence to be heard.
    It seems actually vital to have such information if Juries are to make a judgement of whose account is most truthful. And frankly this has to be based on any pattern of behaviour. In fact there is indeed a double standard here as up till now all the feminist guidance has been to concentrate only on the actual event, so that the complainant’s previous behaviour isn’t referred to.To be honest I see no way round this “politicking” to achieve convictions no matter how unsound, other than to return these trials to fully public trials, as with any other crime so the justice being done is seen to be done.
    The defendant, as in all cases, faces the full power of the Gov. in the form of the CPS. Yet no one it seems defends their right to a fair trial, rather than one “rigged” to up statistics. .

  • AFP

    Outrageous – of course it is. There is no evidence that “controlling or coercive behaviour towards other women” is in any way associated with rape. That is just a feminist assumption.

    Ms Saunders will just keep tinkering with the rules until she finds a way to convict more men of rape, regardless of their guilt or innocence.

    Generally the article is also very biased in the way it is written. Martin Evans should not be calling anything “the attack” when there has not been any conviction of rape. Even after a conviction saying “the attack” is extemely misleading when you are talking about “date rape” or more accurately drunken sex.

    • Vasubandhu

      Probably Martin Evans is one of the Telegraph’s notorious pack of manginas. Jonathan Liew, a sports writer, and Michael Hanlon, who comments on theatre and TV, are others who come to mind. When I was commenting at the Telegraph I named Jonathan Liew ‘cuckman’. I also asked Simon Heffer on numerous occasions via the comments how he felt on sharing the Telegraph with crapulous feminists, but he never condescended to reply. The paper is an embarrassment to Britain.

      • Craig Martin

        The telegraph has been without credibility for a while now.
        It is a Feminist ‘Ranting Teen’ mag, and only fit for a BBQ firelighter.

  • AJ

    In any case in which an important element is consent the credibility of each parties account is critical. Evidence of previous behaviour and attitudes are essential to judging this. The extent to which each account aligns or does not align to the previous behaviour and attitude of the parties is perhaps the only way of assesing this credibility beyond the demeanor of each witness and should therefore be seen as crucial.

    The sexual history of the man absolutely should be available to the extent reasonably possible to the court however by the same token so should the women’s. If the women’s sexual history cannot be introduced into evidence then neither should the mans. A presumption of innocence should mean that if conflicting accounts are given and this is the only evidence available the man is found innocent.

    We know however that this is frequently not the case but that there is a strong presumption against the man. The Ched Evans case shows quite how far this presumption goes with two men’s testimony being outweighed by an inability to remember. It is only evidence that the men’s accounst aligned very closely to the sexual history and past behaviour of the women that allowed Ched Evans to prove his innocence. The law that prevents this evidence normally being introduced that contributed to the injustice done to him, the almost complete destruction of his career, massive financial damage and personal distress none of which are recoverable. This shows the need for evidence of past sexual behaviour of both parties to be admitted in all such future cases.

  • MacOisdealbh

    Any man that stays current on the continuing and growing man hating from the police and courts has to seriously question any relationship with any woman.

  • Deep Freeze

    Total hypocrisy- so a man’s sexual history can be used as evidence in court but a woman’s cannot? I am of the belief that any evidence brought forward should be considered by the jury (so a man can be judged by a group of his peers (the jury)). And surely in a crime that looks an awful lot like consensual sex in a lot of cases the conviction rate SHOULD be low, due to the requirement of proving someone guilty beyond reasonable doubt before sending them to prison. Why is this so difficult to grasp?

  • Slowcoach

    In the unlikely event that you haven’t already noticed, I draw your attention to the supercilious, twisted lip smirk in the photograph at the top of this item.

    What do you make of it?

  • Vasubandhu

    This woman is a very pertinent symbol for everything that is wrong with Britain today. With her and her ilk at the top of the tree it is very easy to imagine the British State tottering towards its well-deserved end. Conversely, her sacking might well indicate a very important tipping point has been reached.

  • Give them an inch and they’ll take a yard, as my late mother and her mother used often to say, and give them enough rope, they’ll hang themselves, as my late father used occasionally to say. They’re well on the way to hanging themselves, metaphorically speaking, and when they do …

  • AreYouStandingUp

    Social Media History!! So she wants to stifle people (men only by the looks of it!) expressing themselves through social media lest it be used against them later. Massive attack and potential destruction on our freedom!!

    Plus ‘police and prosecutors ought to put a greater onus on rape suspects to demonstrate how the complainant had consented “with full capacity and freedom to do so”.’ i.e. make men prove their innocence. Impossible, ridiculous and completely inhuman to expect two consenting adults to draw up a contract of agreement/consent like something from the porn industry each time they have sex.

    Alison Saunders is toxic to human life – directly men, but indirectly women too