Le vittime in casi di stupro possono risiedere in tribunale, afferma il principale avvocato

The lawman involved there appears to be a busy man, spinning rather a lot of plates as it were.

It would appear that this particular plate is generating some interest for his public profile, though this is of course rather a cynical take. I’m not 100% on whether or not this is something that’s actually controversial or if it’s rather just a considered remark regarding nuance in legal proceedings not commonly presented for public discussion.

I’m sure someone will correct me if I’m wrong here if it’s a matter of legal practice or something more incendiary on behalf of the KC.

Edit; I challenge the downvoter to explain what exactly it is they disagree with considering I left my comment open to interpretation regarding my actual position.

A lack of explanation proves the existence of bandwagoning and your downvotes are meaningless.

Anyone who lies to the police/court should be punished, even if they are the victim.

(I read the Scottish Herald article because paywall)

I was open to his points until it said he didn’t accept that rape had a low conviction rate.

It does, factually, have an astonishingly low conviction rate, especially when you consider how few cases go to court. Our justice system is fundamentally not set up to prosecute rape – and that’s okay until it isn’t.

Rape can be really hard to prove, it’s so rarely the stranger in a dark alley image we all have, it’s people known to us; intimate partners, friends, family, coworkers. And fairly often there is an existing sexual relationship, so the question moves from “did it happen” to “was there consent”. That means the evidence is entirely “he said she said” at that point and how on earth do you even build a court system designed to handle that? You don’t, frankly, and we have to be okay with the limitations of human ability.

But I think the failings of the justice system with respect to rape often go beyond that limitation, and we have to make efforts to reduce those errors and biases. It is entirely possible Mr Ross is correct that this rule is being misapplied – the Supreme Court doesn’t seem to think so. But it worries me that he doesn’t even acknowledge the base problem – that rape is an underconvicted crime – and that, to me, is a dangerous bias.