[forfrosne]

Originally Posted by dr2005

With all due respect, that isn't what I was getting at - the problems in the court system when it comes to rape and sexual assaults isn't so much the evidential problem as historical problems with the admissibility of claims about past conduct which have nothing in the slightest to do with the matter at hand but can nonetheless discredit the victim in the eyes of the jury. That is to say nothing of sometimes inherent prejudice in juries and some judges. "Concrete evidence" for such offences often does not exist and I feel it is somewhat naive to suggest that it does, or indeed that it does for many offences. My point was more that aside from some notable examples - of which the rape accused anonymity issue is another good one - to claim the system is biased against men is not borne out by the facts in this area at least.

Yes I think in some ways you're correct, women's claims are often just flicked aside even IF there's evidence for the case, which does need to be worked on. But on the other hand, on your point of the concrete evidence and my apparent naivety: If it doesn't exist, then that's that. Nobody will be prosecuted. It's a shame, but it's the only moral way for our courts to work. It is inherently immoral to prosecute someone with no evidence, even if they did that act. And that last bit, I assume you agree with me?
The system is biased against men, that mchu we know. I agree that it is also difficult for women to present a case to the courts, but I think that's less down to how the court itself works and more to do with the actual act (is there evidence etc).