Perverting Justice is this author's bag of tricks, and her argument today is completely without merit.

I agree with the enlightened Scottish argument, which is one we should adopt! And add, we have today unbeatable lie detection that can be covertly deployed to assist the court or have the judge land on the truth.

I know many judges believe they are human lie detectors, but that may be true in part as some serious criminals (male rapists) have fooled many a judge and gone to re-offend.

This (shite for brains) author would likely defend the mass murdering, mass rapists (Osbornes) of this world, as a matter of course. And strikes me as being in league with evil. Or the Devil's advocate.
Alan B.

" the first-ever empirical research on actual jurors serving on real cases showed the feminist propaganda is wrong. " (from the article)

That, of course, is entirely beside the point. We now live in a age where actual evidence, let alone truth, is surplus to needs. A proposition that cannot be supported by sufficient data, is simply asserted as fact. Asserted as fact without any need to prove it or even offer some support for the assertion. Asserted as fact so often and by so many voices in so many fora that the uninformed accept is as fact and the committed proceed as though it is fact.

Cleopatra was black. Slavery only ever happened in the US. We have 10 years to save the planet. Green energy is cheaper than fossil fuel energy. Climate disasters are increasing. The pacific islands are sinking. Women don't lie about rape. A women who appears to be lying is just traumatised by the rape. All asserted by the committed as fact without the need for evidence and utter outrage if contrary evidence is raised.

What a beautiful argument. A women who appears to be truthful about a rape accusation is proof that it happened, while a women who appears to be untruthful is proof that it happened. Heads I win, tales you lose.

Jarrad Haynes will be sentenced today. I don't know what happened in that room. Only two people do know. One says it was rape, the other says it was consensual. In a fair justice system (better that 10 guilty people go free rather than one innocent be punished) "not guilty" would be the verdict. We don't know what happened between Hughes and Lehrman but one was punished and t'other rewarded. Justice?

Data is beginning to emerge that men are withdrawing from the dating game. Sex for sale and online porn will be growth industries as the only means by which men can safely be sexual.

And when women wonder where all the good men have gone, they'll look askant. And guess what....they'll blame the men.

Some facts.

Stuart Waiton is not a “law lecturer”, he is a criminologist and sociologist and Brexit party candidate.

Jury trials are uncommon in Scotland, where most criminal cases are heard by judges alone. Rape trials are unusual in that they are always jury trials.

Scotland has not decided to abolish trial by jury for rape. An inquiry on the issue was “strongly divided” on the issue and recommended:

“Consideration should be given to developing a time-limited pilot of single judge rape trials to ascertain their effectiveness and how they are perceived by complainers, accused and lawyers, and to enable the issues to be assessed in a practical rather than a theoretical way.”

This seems a sensible and reasonable way to address a complex issue with strong arguments on both sides, and to test what works.

The effects of trauma are just one of nine key reasons Scotland is considering changing rape trials, according to the public discussion paper on the issue. Neither Arndt nor Waiton address any of the other eight. The paper also gives due and balanced consideration to the case for retaining jury trials.

https://www.gov.scot/publications/improving-victims-experiences-justice-system/pages/11/

The US Air Force Office of Special Investigations did not call all trauma-informed practice “flawed science”. That phrase described one specific form of investigation known as “Forensic Experiential Trauma Interview”.

Arndt repeats Waiton’s argument that the trauma affects a victim’s behaviour in ways that make them appear less credible, and that judges will therefore take lack of credibility as evidence of trauma. But that is flawed logic. That A may lead to B does not make B proof of A; judges should know that.

Mark Dreyfus’ announcement of funding for law reform observes:

“One in five women in Australia have experienced sexual violence since the age of 15. Only 13 per cent of these women reported their most recent assault to the police. For those who do report, attrition rates are high, prosecution rates are low, and conviction rates are even lower.”

Perhaps Arndt could reflect on this next time she writes about injustice in rape cases.

A major factor in some claims appears to be that the new boyfriend is the one pushing for charges to be laid. That way the current boyfriend is assured that his new beloved is not a floozy, ie she is 'unshamed'. In the case of women who were besmirched decades ago by sporting, political or showbiz men I suspect a cabal of female friends = sistas urged them to press charges. What started out as kiss and tell by the victim turns into a crusade. The cad may have gone on to great success but the victim who was surely destined for greater things languished through no fault of their own. That type of victim is a bad judge of character both male and female

Simply outlaw financial compensation & presto, no more expensive, time-wasting court cases !

OMG. Now it’s # Saved Rape #.

Watch on!

http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwi-8t727O_-AhUmpVYBHU4cB0w4MhDPjQV6BAgHEBM&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DbVbNNHB-HLI&usg=AOvVaw2Qbr5RKbigl48sP5b_rZB8