Guest post: Another tactic to deter women from reporting rape
Originally a comment by latsot in the Miscellany Room.
UK police forces are increasingly demanding that victims of rape and sexual assault hand over their phones and account details under the threat of their cases being dropped if they don’t.
Let’s be entirely clear about this. Someone making an accusation of rape (or any other crime) has a certain burden of evidence. For example, she might have to produce evidence that she was in the same place as the alleged rapist at the same time. In this case, she might choose to allow police to access the location data from her phone service or the police might obtain a warrant to perform a time/location limited search regardless of permission. Even I – a known privacy tinhat – wouldn’t object to that if I were seeking to prosecute and I doubt I’d consider it a violation if it were a known and routine part of any investigation of that sort.
But there might be other sources of the same evidence such as CCTV or witness accounts. Surely the intent is to establish opportunity. If phone location is needed for that, then it ought to be provided at the victim’s discretion, not demanded in advance alongside everything else that’s on her phone before an investigation can even begin.
An accused rapist might claim texts or social media exchanges as exonerating or mitigating circumstances. In that case, it would surely be his responsibility to produce the relevant material and not the victim’s responsibility to hand over her phone. Confronted with these claims, she might or might not agree to disclose some data knowing that it might hurt her case if she doesn’t. But in that case, the police could specify exactly what data was required. For example, social media posts within a timeframe or involving a particular third party. There would be no need for her to hand over her phone for this purpose.
There have been many, many cases of police the world over stealing intimate photographs from people’s phones and sharing them with colleagues, friends and the internet at large. There have also been many cases of police unearthing something dodgy about a victim unrelated to the case at hand and that case disappearing because of it. There are also many, many, many, many cases of women being judged because of the things they say, the things they wear, the photographs they have on their phone and – let’s face it – literally everything else. There’s an equal if not greater number of cases where women have been humiliated in court because of the judgements prosecutors believe (presumably rightly in enough cases to make it worthwhile) that juries will make about them.
This is, of course, another tactic to deter women from reporting rape. It’s also a tactic by police to collect as much information about everyone on the planet as possible without any guarantees that the data will be safeguarded, deleted when no longer required and not shared at large on the internet.
As Privacy International has reported, the UK police don’t even have the proper guidelines to deal with the contents of anyone’s phone, let alone actual rules or procedures or any departments equipped to enforce them.
This could not be more obviously calculated to persuade women to drop charges of rape and sexual assault.
And the wider implication is that in time anyone who makes any kind of complaint against anybody at all must have led a blameless life or be afraid to seek justice of any kind.
We British are so easily whipped up into fascist sentiment. What in screaming fuck is wrong with us? That is not a rhetorical question.
Yeah, that’s atrocious. I’m glad the author of the Guardian piece is suing. Hopefully she’ll win.
And defense lawyers, as well as juries, are more than capable of turning totally innocent something into wild, outrageous behavior (which, I might note, the victim has a right to participate in as long as it is legal, and which does not constitute permission for sexual activities). Something as simple as a single glass of wine can turn into a drunken orgy. A single nice, pleasant comment to a young man becomes flirting or promiscuity, even something totally banal and perhaps even forced out of politeness. Simply being in the same place as a young man becomes equivalent to consent for many juries. Simply leaving the safety of her house at any time for any reason can be turned against her.
Nude pictures on her phone? Not necessary. Tweets to the young man in question? Not necessary. Any tweet to any young man anywhere at any time can be twisted to give the impression that the young man on trial believed he had consent.
Hook ups, sexting, nude photography – all of these should be the choice of the woman, and should not be used to imply that she has consented to sex with any man other than any she has explicitly consented to…but juries simply prefer not to understand that.
In fact, I have no doubt that the mere fact that I put on earrings this morning would be able to be twisted into consent by some of these defense attorneys, even in the face of my modest garb which covers almost everything except my hands and head (but I do have fringes on my shirt – a sure sign of hippie promiscuity, amirite?).
Exactly so, iknklast. And don’t forget what she’s bought (or even browsed) on Amazon or ebay. Don’t forget what people have bought her on those platforms. Don’t forget her search history or the search histories of people to whom she’s in some way connected.
Don’t imagine for a moment those things haven’t been used to discredit people in court because they certainly have.
And I haven’t even got started yet.
Too bad these defense attorneys can’t be arsed to defend harmless drug users…
BKiSA – oh, they can! But only if the drug user committed rape while high. Oh, and happens to be white and wealthy.
It’s certainly an effort to discourage reporting. It’s also a massive invasion of privacy – both for the victim, and for everyone else connected to her. No other offenses seem to get this kind of attitude – funny, huh?
Police forces currently lack the manpower to go through digital evidence – there are thousands of handsets/machines sitting in evidence storage across the country because of a lack of Digital Forensics officers. Processing DF evidence can take upwards of a year, and it can take thousands of man-hours to analyse an individual machine. There are guidelines for processing evidence, but no real rules in terms of what can be handled and how it is stored. Much of this is a direct result of the Tories’ obsession with destroying public services of any kind, but it’s been a problem for years – the sheer amount of data that needs to be processed in any one case is vast, and ever-increasing as storage capacities grow.
There’s the inconvenience factor too – many of us rely on our handsets to help us deal with daily life – everything from routes and mapping, work emails/services, medical records, AAC apps for individuals who are non-verbal all or part of the time, and other highly specialised factors, to accessing basic services. Many Disabled women & girls use similar systems to organise their lives.
How many Disabled women & girls, already more likely to be targeted because “no-one will believe you”, will be revictimised along with losing independance – which can be incredibly hard to recover?
So many women are simply going to decide that it’s not worth it – already victims end up on trial far more than the suspects; “what did you do to provoke him?”, and it’s going to get to the point where it might as well be perfectly legal, open season on anyone. Conviction rates have been dropping still further, from horrendously inadequate figures to begin with. The issue of having to find a replacement handset/new phone number/all digital credentials and so on is a ridiculous and unreasonable burden which is going to hit the poorest and most vulnerable the hardest, yet again.
@cluecat:
Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes and – for that matter – yes.
Naturally, in every single instance I’ve seen of this story being reported, there are comments from men saying something like:
And there we have it. The victims, who obviously are overwhelmingly likely to be women, must be treated the same as attackers. That is how this process is seen by people at large. It’s the fallacy of he-said-she-said writ large and with extra-horrendous possible consequences for the victim, whether she chooses to hand over her phone or not. So when a woman reports a rape she has to choose between what she feels is the lesser of two evils on top of the evil that’s already been done to her.
It might hurt her defense (because face it, that’s what it is) if she hands over her phone because the police and courts and juries will make judgements about whether they feel she deserved to be raped. But if she doesn’t, they won’t pursue the case at all.
It’s a perfect stitch-up.
latsot, most of that I suspect comes from seeing the accused as a victim in this situation. OMG, he’s been accused of rape, not OMG he may have committed rape. Those two ideas are a world apart in how we think about them.
Well yes. The he-said-she-said fallacy is a pretense that all evidence is subject to that peculiar lens that shrinks culpability to fuck all and somehow renders any speck that can be phrased as guilt by morally corrupt arseholes as a nine dimensional hologram.
I don’t know if you’ve been following the latest Jacob Wohl nonsense. He was recently caught trying to get men to invent stories about being sexually assaulted by Pete Buttigieg. This coming just a few months after his attempts to get women to invent stories about being sexually harassed by Robert Mueller.
It’s true that Wohl is fairly incompetent, but it is nevertheless telling just how hard it is — even with bribery at your disposal, even with powerful political motivations involved — to actually get someone to publicly make false accusations against a famous person.
Screechy, but everyone knows women always just make shit up all the time about being raped and harassed! /s
Yes, Rob, I filed seven false rape claims today…and I still have a few hours to go! /s
Only seven? Pfffft Amateur!