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

If anything is perverting Justice, it’s the Judiciary !

None of the other commentors addressed the fact that for many years now we have had unbeatable space age lie detection that can be deployed covertly. And if so deployed, allow the truth to prevail.

Rather, it seems for many it is not the almighty truth that counts, just winning or preserving medieval customs and culture! Where women were and remain mere goods and chattels (property) to be used with or without consent.

Instead of challenging the science, how about getting to the absolute truth.

Lindy Chamberlan sat unmoved, and stoney faced as she was sentenced to jail for the murder/infanticide, she was innocent of. And this is the very trauma the victims of unspeakable act of violence and massive violation of trust suffer, that is the past tense result of the act of rape.

There seems a lot of the detractors commenting here, lacking normal human empathy or even fair-minded objectivity. Hope none of the aforementioned (knuckle draggers) are ever asked to do jury duty!
Alan B.

It always takes two to tango.
When boy meets girl, and they engage in intimate conversation, or cuddles or caresses, they both know that sexual intercourse might take place.
And they have each willingly put themselves in a situation where this can happen.
For either to say afterwards that he was not 'willing', if foolish and totally disingenuous.
Each was aware.
Each knew the risk.
And if, at the time, they were influenced by self administered alcohol or drugs, it is still the same.
By lessening their own ability to assess and control, they are inviting action they cannot manage.
And they have done so deliberately.
And if anything does happen, they are still party to it.
To say otherwise if just foolish.
Rarely is there true rape.
I think there is often a lot of 'panel-beating' to make an ordinary situation appear otherwise.
There is talk of trauma, and hurt feelings, and goodness knows what else.
Time for people to grow up, and begin using common sense, and being responsible as well.
We shouldn't clog up the courts with all this nonsense.
And the cost can run in to millions of dollars.
Come on now!
A bit of adult logic and restraint would have avoided a mess which grew like 'topsy'.

I have always believed it to be unfair in the extreme to have people who chose to practice questionable sexuality to judge heterosexual people !

Hope none of the aforementioned (knuckle draggers) are ever asked to do jury duty!
Alan B,
A knuckle dragger is no worse than some lobotomised academic Uni indoctrinated ! At least a knuckle dragger would still have a tiny speck of common sense !

Indy. Like that (I don't give a shite) knuckle dragger that raped an 18-month-old baby?

I've heard all the arguments, like she was dressed provocatively, or she knew what was coming etc. None of which stack or imply a consent which was never given!

No means no, no maybe, perhaps or if you continue to persist with that digital violation, I might give in.

Keep your pecker in your pants unless asked to take it out. It's not just sex we're talking about, but the possible transfer of lethal death sentence, terminal STDs! Read the story of a man who knowingly infected many women with HIV aids.

Do you know your current sexual health status or that you effectively sleep with every partner your current partner slept with!

Or men who gang raped a six-year-old, who screamed for daddy the hours the torture continued that so damaged her little womb that she would never be able to conceive or have a baby! Left her for dead, then turned up at their favourite drinking hole boasting about it.

That she survived and lived to tell meant little as a good lawyer would get them a slap on the wrist with a wet tram ticket.

So, the dad got a shotgun, killed the two sons of bitches at point blank range, then pleaded justifiable homicide and won his freedom!

If it was your wife or daughter? How would you react? Oh, it's ok, just part of human nature. If she is pregnant, let her marry her violator, right?

Me? I'd introduce to my Indian friend, Desert Eagle! And empty a 10-round clip into them five apiece.
Alan B.

#Where women were and remain mere goods and chattels (property) to be used with or without consent.#

Poor O’l Alan.

True, but that is natures way in the animal kingdom. Women are designed to be dominated for sexual purposes.
There are some choices though.
Women will generally have a right to choose; but if her choice is to object to the unavoidable reality, historically, that’s the point at which their life will unravel.

Giving women equality is a fundamental mistake, which takes all of society into a twilight zone of madness, as the subject matter of this article clearly points out!

Come on Rhian, the current explosion in youth crime proves that judges are getting it wrong, at least as often as they get it right.

Fair go Alan, what the hell has a gang rape of a 6 year old got to do with some bird who had a one night stand, then was miffed when he didn't call the next day. Time to get real old mate.

Alan B,

We all know that you are in favour of kangaroo courts. There are already plenty of cases of men being falsely convicted of rape without the courts chucking out any pretence of the burden of proof.

Alan B,
I’m certain that each one of us can pull up a stark example of whatever we’re arguing against.
I’m also certain that in the scheme of things, more misery & suffering has been caused by people either learned or in power or both than by knuckle draggers. Yes, knuckle draggers are almost as much of a nuisance as the uni indoctrinated Lefties but not quite as bad.
A reason for such animals in human form to walk & do freely whatever sick things they do is because the “educated” elite & its soft approach to such animals makes it possible in the first place to either offend or more sickening to re-offend !
It wouldn’t take too long to pull up instances where such offenders were “known to the authorities” !
I have always stated that professionals, real scholars & researchers etc should not be put into the same category as Academics & their lobotomised cheaper cousins leaving Uni !

If you favour allowing your instinctive behaviour to override your logical and reasoned behaviour, you are no better than those you say you despise.
We MUST accept that not all brains are wired the same.
Some around you do not have the clear thinking that you have.
So some persons can and do do things which almost horrify us.

Don't forget that long long ago our ancestors lived a 'wild' life.
Over the time since then, we have not all become civilised to the same extent.
We can get an idea of our previous behaviour from observing the animal life around us.
Can you blame a crocodile for chasing and eating humans?
You know full well its brain is wired that way.

So however hard it seems, we MUST NOT give in to raw emotion.
It does not make the situation better.
Being revengeful is aimed at giving vent to extreme personal disapproval.
Such spur of the moment action does not achieve much beyond that.
Time to draw back, and let cooler heads decide what to do?

First we need to identify, and then separate harmful persons from the rest of society.
Which should be a peaceful process if possible.
The law should act without fear or favour to ensure it happens that way.
We simply cannot have private individuals acting as policeman, judge, and executioner, all rolled in to one.
That could create just as much fear in our ranks as any alleged wrongdoer would?

Still not one of my many detractors have made mention of the fact that we now have unbeatable space age lie detection. And a sure and certain way to know with absolute clarity who's telling the pork pies.

Most blokes will say, they should be allowed to have a night out with friends without some numbskull imposing their unwanted presence on their enjoyment. Slipping something into their drink, then taking them back to their place for unwanted anal sex which may come with incurable STDs!

Yet, when a lady goes for a night out with her female friends, she is fair game for just that, right?

Two things ladies, never accept an already opened drink and never go anywhere alone, nor accept a ride home with a stranger. Go home with who you came with. And inform friends or folks what time they can expect you home, or whose home you'll be guest in.

DD, At least I've got morals and integrity and will face my maker without trepidation, with my record such as it is and answer for all of it. I've seen what hell looks like and pity those who think that any evil is ok if nobody sees.

At the end of the day, you will know that nothing is hidden including your attitudes. Attitudes created in your mind by the thoughts you allow therein. Attitudes which you need to own!
Alan B.

"Or men who gang raped a six-year-old, who screamed for daddy the hours the torture continued that so damaged her little womb that she would never be able to conceive or have a baby! Left her for dead, then turned up at their favourite drinking hole boasting about it.

That she survived and lived to tell meant little as a good lawyer would get them a slap on the wrist with a wet tram ticket.

So, the dad got a shotgun, killed the two sons of bitches at point blank range, then pleaded justifiable homicide and won his freedom!"

wow, they should make that into a movie.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Time_to_Kill_(1996_film)

When you can't distinguish fact from fiction.....

Hasbeen

I’m not sure why an explosion in youth crime could be blamed on judges, or why that affects the arguments for and against judge-only trials in sexual assault cases. In any event I’m sure you’ll be delighted to know that there has been a steady and marked drop in youth crime rates over the past several years, from a recent peak of 3,338.5 per 100,000 people 2009-10 to just 1,778.2 in 2021-22.

https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/crime-and-justice/recorded-crime-offenders/latest-release#data-downloads

IF

You say “First we need to identify, and then separate harmful persons from the rest of society”.

There is one minority in Australia that is responsible for the great majority of crimes, especially violent crimes. They account for 86% of homicides, 93% of sexual assaults, 80% of robberies and 75% of deliberate injuries. Yet they make up just 49.8% of the population.

Of course, I’m talking about males.

It is not even necessary to lock up every male to make Australia much safer. Offending rates are quite low for young boys and old men. So all we need to do is lock up boys at 15 and keep them in jail until they turn 50.

Or perhaps you had another target group in mind?

Moira Deeming:
This is an example of someone thinking and acting in a way she shouldn't in modern society?
No need to count her teeth though.
I have to assume that some of what I read about her is correct.
I have to assume that journalists are doing their job professionally.
So I base my comments on their good and conscientious reporting.
I ask: who does she think she is?
What she is is the elected representative of her electorate.
Her duty is to keep abreast of her electorate's attitude and needs?
And she should use her personal expertise to assess the relative importance of their biddings.
And this should influence how she votes in parliament?
Which should, overall, be along party lines?
For that is what she was elected to do.
She is not some exalted delivery agent for righteousness.
She is not some all powerful source of unending wisdom.
Her personal thoughts really don't come in to it.
She should concentrate on her electorate, and forget Moira Deeming.
That way, she will achieve their gratitude and support.
And it should also smooth her path through parliamentary life.
Time for her to be humble?

Alan B,
This lie detection is only of use if the people making a decision after hearing of the liar’s deeds have the sense to compose an appropriate penalty. The woke magistrates & those woke who control the magistrates along with the hordes of incompetent & socially inept social engineers have persecuted innocent parties & literally rewarded culprits by way of no punishment & not even the tiniest degree of discipline.
These are the people responsible for much of the crime & social problems in our society ! You know the ones who went to Uni ?

Dearest Alan.

#DD, At least I've got morals and integrity and will face my maker without trepidation, with my record such as it is and answer for all of it. I've seen what hell looks like and pity those who think that any evil is ok if nobody sees#..

There are those Christians among us who firmly don’t believe in the resurrectionist theory as portrayed by the RC Church (from their interpretation of fellow believers and Christian literature of the third century), with a library of reject Apocrypha that too often, shoots holes in their belief system.
A number of those Christ followers were so judged to be heretics and were slaughtered for their views.

It’s those poor soles that were laid out on the slaughter stone of the self righteous for sacrifice, that firmly believed hell and heaven are here and now on earth, and that that was the actual message of Christ.

So what that means to your comment above is, do we wait for judgement of our sins, or can we expect a swift response to them in the here and now?

As for your archetypal death dreams, they are just that. Death to any animal is a terrifying experience. Should we slaughter animals for human consumption? No in my view, having worked on the slaughter floor of an abattoir for confirmation.

And straight up Alan, we have a live example of hell on earth in the here and now: spelling.
Of course my reference is to the human soul, not his firm attachment to earth through the sole of his foot. Goes without saying of course.

Alan,

How is your conscience clear when you advocate sending many innocent people to jail?

I'm sure (or at least hope) that Rhian is talking with tongue firmly lodged in mouth when suggesting that young males be incarcerated in mass because they, as a group, are more likely to commit crime than other groups.

BTW, on a totally unrelated theme... "Indigenous people are 15 to 20 times more likely to commit violent offences than non-Indigenous people according to research released today." and "The new study also found Indigenous women are five times more likely to commit a violent offence than non-indigenous men."

I have read the article of Bettina Ardnt who was once a sex therapist and now a mens issues activist. From my knowledge Ms Ardnt has not met with the author of Don't Cry Rape and was not in the room when the rape happened. Bettina Ardnt had every opportunity to meet with Trish Wyatt and could easily have done so before writing such tripe. Bettina Ardnt may enjoy someone ramming their fist up her vagina, or forcing their genitals into her mouth so forceful that she struggles to breath, but Trish Wyatt didn't.

The justice system is so out of touch that the decision handed down cannot be accepted as the truth. Bettina Ardnt has done more damage to the mens issues movement by comparing what happened to Trish Wyatt to what mens issues are about. Perhaps Bettina Ardnt hasn't researched mens issues either and just writes what she think people want to read.

I know men who have suffered because the system is designed to support women who claim abuse and have to fight to have custody of children etc. Any real man, no matter how much he has suffered from his ex, would not approve of what happened to Trish Wyatt even though it happened during a date. Bettina Ardnt would have to be the worst advocate for 'mens issues' and is doing more harm than good.

Bettina Ardnt perhaps it is time you hang up your pen and realise that you are a has been. What a pity the perpetrator cannot be named because I think you would make the perfect couple.

"Bettina Ardnt may enjoy someone ramming their fist up her vagina, or forcing their genitals into her mouth so forceful that she struggles to breath, but Trish Wyatt didn't."

What Arndt is saying is that these claims by Wyatt are not true. The jury agreed, at least to the extent of saying there was no evidence they were true.

Just because a woman asserts she was assaulted doesn't make it so, although in some circles unevidenced assertion is the same as established fact.

There is no justice on either side, but there are big bucks for Lawyers.

There needs to be a major enquiry into the DPP, without who’s action a criminal charge would not eventuate.

The evidence in this case was nothing more sophisticated than a “he said she said”.

An extension of criminal law act to define a more far reaching definition of a vexatious claim, is also urgently needed.

And last but not least, the application for legal aid must include both parties in a high profile case such as rape cases, where evidence is very thin on the ground.

Effectively, if you have a job of any definition, legal aid will be denied; this aspect alone almost ensures a win for the government funded legal aid recipients.

Is it just my observation or is a man with money automatically a target to be entrapped into a situation where he can be accused of rape ?
A woman is apparently automatically a rape victim if she’s under the influence of liqueur or recreational drugs even if she drags a man into a secluded corner. All she has to do is to go through the motions & then scream rape up to 30 years later ?

And then…there is the appeal system.

Appeals must be set in a higher court. For example an appeal emanating from a District court will be heard in the Supreme Court.

This process will be more expensive to the defendant than the initial hearings and sentencing outcomes.

There are twenty eight days in which the appeal can be considered before application for an appeals hearing.

Both parties may appeal an outcome.

The defendant will die from a thousand cuts before the conclusion.

All this is ruthless stuff. No mercy here.

Then come the long prison sentence for the defendant if he loses.

Effectively he will lose vast sums of money and his life.

Become a monk.

Mhaze

Yes, the suggestion about locking men up was tongue in cheek, but I wanted to illustrate what a dumb idea it is to lock people up on the basis they may be harmful (or whatever it was IF meant by “First we need to identify, and then separate harmful persons from the rest of society”).

Also, the stats are accurate. Give the crude misogyny of many commentators here, and Arndt’s preoccupation with male victimhood, it is worth reminding people where the bigger problems actually lie

To clarify:
I thought it obvious that 'harmful persons' meant those persons who steal or resort to violence.
Until someone behaves 'improperly', he is just as 'innocent' as anyone else.
We all have the capacity to be harmful, but having that capacity is not, in itself, a crime.
Most of us use reason to control personal behaviour.
Being unreasonable, to the point of causing some form of harm, is really the 'crime'?

Arndt’s preoccupation with male victimhood
Rhian,
Hers is a way lot less of a preoccupation than that of the femmo nazi affiliates & pseudo intellectual discount Uni degree recipients !

IF
We already lock up people convicted of serious crimes – so what are you suggesting we do differently?

Rhian,
Some bad criminals get locked up but many who cause much misery to others are free & & at the end of the day collect Superannuation.

The Commonwealth, by way of Parliament, determines which are indictable offences.
Sexual offences are included in the long list.

If this is to change, it requires the cooperation of the Senate to pass any proposed changes.p to that list. Best of luck on that one.

Defendants charged with an indictable offence have a right to a trial by Judge or Jury. (Roughly speaking).

The fear of changes to this norm by the author, are based in her argument of a simple case.
But if a rape of a women occurred by multiple offenders, then the field is complicated by numbers, and it’s agreeable, a Judge alone may be the best option for an all-round just trial, which may, in some cases, find some of the accused liable to lesser charges.

I can see, it may well be expeditious for a judge alone trial to conclude on all issues with some simultaneousness.

Also, I can see that any proposed changes may have the opposite effect of leniency being a highlight and cause for public concern in itself.

Problem is, it is difficult to deny that Judges are political creatures; and the issue of a female Judge presiding on a rape trial, is too often judged as prejudicial.

A jury trial is by far a safer option in my view.