UK: CPS rape report makes for grim reading – and it’s only the start

[Social Media]

Unveiling the Harsh Realities of Sexual Offence Prosecution: Insights from a Groundbreaking Report

 

The recent release of a comprehensive report shedding light on the Crown Prosecution Service's (CPS) handling of rape cases in England and Wales has sent shockwaves through the legal and advocacy communities. Delving deep into CPS case files and supplemented by interviews with various stakeholders, including CPS staff, police officers, and independent sexual violence advisers (ISVAs), the report paints a distressing picture of the prevailing attitudes towards victims of sexual offences.

 

The findings reveal disturbing instances of CPS lawyers trivializing cases of teen sexual abuse, employing victim-blaming rhetoric, and displaying skepticism towards non-conventional sexual practices. Such archaic attitudes are disheartening, considering the concerted efforts made in recent years to address shortcomings in the criminal justice system's response to sexual violence.

 

The government's 2020 rape review, prompted by a significant decline in rape prosecutions despite a rise in reported cases, ushered in Operation Soteria—a groundbreaking initiative aimed at reforming the handling of rape cases. While progress has been made, with increased police referrals and a renewed focus on investigating predatory behavior, challenges persist, particularly in the courts.

 

Long delays and a burgeoning backlog of rape cases threaten to undermine the strides made in improving the system's efficiency and effectiveness. To address these issues, calls have been made for the establishment of specialized rape courts and investigation units within police forces, alongside initiatives to attract and retain talent within the CPS.

 

However, the road to comprehensive reform extends beyond the realms of law enforcement and prosecution. Greater investment in research into the judiciary, court procedures, and rehabilitation programs is essential to achieve genuine "end-to-end" improvement in the handling of sexual offence cases.

 

The report's revelations, while troubling, underscore the importance of transparency and accountability in addressing systemic failures. By exposing these shortcomings, stakeholders can work towards meaningful reform and ensure that survivors of sexual violence receive the support and justice they deserve.

 

Nevertheless, financial constraints remain a significant obstacle to progress, with CPS staff highlighting the detrimental impact of austerity measures on resources and staffing levels. While increased funding is crucial, transformative change also requires a broader societal shift towards greater gender equality and prevention of sexual violence.

 

Ultimately, while the criminal justice system plays a vital role in addressing sexual offences, true progress lies in preventing such atrocities from occurring in the first place. As we strive for a more just and equitable society, it is imperative that we confront these challenges head-on and work collaboratively towards lasting change.

 

12.03.24

Source

 

[thaibeachlovers]

On 3/12/2024 at 10:32 AM, Social Media said:

While increased funding is crucial,

and there we have it. Give them more money!

 

Are "they" upset because a woman's word is not always taken to be true, or is it that not enough men have been banged up?

[Skipalongcassidy]

So now the first response is that the men who rape and commit sexual offences are being "banged up" and the women who are assaulted are lying... SAD

In the real world proper "funding" is always required... it is not necessarily a bad thing.

[Thingamabob]

Who wrote the report ?

[Presnock]

Seems society has or is changing not only in the US but elsewhere too!  Politicians at all levels need to begin taking responsibility for providing adequate security for all the citizens.  Unfortunately, in my opinion, politicians at almost all levels - the higher the worse, once elected are only concerned with re-election and seek monetary means in all areas rather than earning it.  I have read of politicians at very high levels unable to floor let alone pass bills concerning anti-corruption by politicians!  Time for voters to be aware of the candidates' positions. These are my opinions only and the stories I read about these activities have been written for many

years now and thus, I can't cite particular stories.  Some can be found by googling this activity.

[Chomper Higgot]

4 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

and there we have it. Give them more money!

 

Are "they" upset because a woman's word is not always taken to be true, or is it that not enough men have been banged up?

I take it you read the report and felt the need to provide an example of the attitudes towards the victims of sexual offenses it mentions.

 

the report paints a distressing picture of the prevailing attitudes towards victims of sexual offences.

 

[blazes]

UK: CPS rape report makes for grim reading – and it’s only the start

 

Once again on AN, a headline that bears no resemblance to the story beneath.  

Trivialises a serious subject.

[Chomper Higgot]

33 minutes ago, blazes said:

UK: CPS rape report makes for grim reading – and it’s only the start

 

Once again on AN, a headline that bears no resemblance to the story beneath.  

Trivialises a serious subject.

The headline is from the linked article and it does nothing if the sort.

[youreavinalaff]

1 hour ago, blazes said:

UK: CPS rape report makes for grim reading – and it’s only the start

 

Once again on AN, a headline that bears no resemblance to the story beneath.  

Trivialises a serious subject.

It was actually the Guardian.

 

Here is a more balanced, less sensationslist article.

 

https://www.cps.gov.uk/cps/news/cps-leaders-welcome-final-findings-academic-report-prosecution-rape

[Chomper Higgot]

9 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

It was actually the Guardian.

 

Here is a more balanced, less sensationslist article.

 

https://www.cps.gov.uk/cps/news/cps-leaders-welcome-final-findings-academic-report-prosecution-rape

The CPS article on the report on the CPS published by the CPS on the CPS website.

 

Balanced?

[RayC]

As if often 

29 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

It was actually the Guardian.

 

Here is a more balanced, less sensationslist article.

 

https://www.cps.gov.uk/cps/news/cps-leaders-welcome-final-findings-academic-report-prosecution-rape

 

I would agree that the Guardian's headline is sensationalist on the negative side. However, after reading the CPS account, one might be forgiven for thinking that the initiatives are progressing well. As is often the case, the truth lies somewhere in-between as a reading of the summary report shows.

[youreavinalaff]

23 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The CPS article on the report on the CPS published by the CPS on the CPS website.

 

Balanced?

I guess you didn't read the whole article. Including the link to the source of the research.

 

Never mind. It's well known you prefer to rely on what the Guardian says.

[Chomper Higgot]

4 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

I guess you didn't read the whole article. Including the link to the source of the research.

 

Never mind. It's well known you prefer to rely on what the Guardian says.

I did read the whole article hence my comment.

 

The Guardian article is a broader view and was not subject to the CPS checks to ensure it met the COS requirements wrt what the COS wishes to be said about the COS on the COS website.

 

It goes under the heading ‘journalism’, not ‘public image management’.

 

 

 

 

[youreavinalaff]

6 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I did read the whole article hence my comment.

 

The Guardian article is a broader view and was not subject to the CPS checks to ensure it met the COS requirements wrt what the COS wishes to be said about the COS on the COS website.

 

It goes under the heading ‘journalism’, not ‘public image management’.

 

 

 

 

In reference to your first sentence, in relation to my question, you clearly didn't. 

[Chomper Higgot]

15 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

In reference to your first sentence, in relation to my question, you clearly didn't. 

 

Your claim the CPS ‘article’ was more balanced.

 

I’ve explained why it wasn’t.

 

Sorry no more time for your pedantry today.

[youreavinalaff]

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

 

Your claim the CPS ‘article’ was more balanced.

 

I’ve explained why it wasn’t.

 

Sorry no more time for your pedantry today.

Pedantry?

 

I suggested you hadn't  read the whole article, including the link to the source.

 

You replied "I did read the whole article, hence my comment"

 

The link to the source takes you to a 136 page report.

 

The time difference between your post and my reply and your subsequent reply, was only minutes. 

 

You did not read it.

[Chomper Higgot]

26 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

Pedantry?

 

I suggested you hadn't  read the whole article, including the link to the source.

 

You replied "I did read the whole article, hence my comment"

 

The link to the source takes you to a 136 page report.

 

The time difference between your post and my reply and your subsequent reply, was only minutes. 

 

You did not read it.

So now you are shifting the parameters.

From:

 

1 hour ago, youreavinalaff said:

Here is a more balanced, less sensationslist article.

To:

 

29 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

I suggested you hadn't  read the whole article, including the link to the source.

 

You replied "I did read the whole article, hence my comment"

 

The link to the source takes you to a 136 page report.

Do you want add a requirement to read any references made within the 136 linked report or shall we just stick to the ‘article’ it being the basis of your original claim of being less biased?

 

 

[youreavinalaff]

2 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

So now you are shifting the parameters.

From:

 

To:

 

Do you want add a requirement to read any references made within the 136 linked report or shall we just stick to the ‘article’ it being the basis of your original claim of being less biased?

 

 

The article has links to back up its findings. The links are part of the article.

 

Shame on the Linkman not to adhere to his own principles.

[Chomper Higgot]

2 hours ago, youreavinalaff said:

The article has links to back up its findings. The links are part of the article.

 

Shame on the Linkman not to adhere to his own principles.

My goodness, you are on a wriggle… agsin.