Heard this on the news last night and also on the radio this morning.

Apparently police will take the victims mobile after the assault and text the rapist things like "how could you do that to me" etc and use the responses as evidence.

Great idea imo, BUT.. why do they tell millions of people the new methods police intend to use to trap these scum bags. making them potentially aware of the methods that may be used to trap them will surely make them less likely to work.

Would like to hear your views on this..


Cookie

 

thought they couldnt use entrapment

 

The rapist is likely to text back "How the hell did you get my number?"

 

i just thought that why would a rapist give the victim their number?

 

Are most rapes not commited by someone the victim knows?... or is that another crime i'm thinking of?

 

Considering I didn't know about this until you told me, aren't you answering your own question?

 

I abused you here, but I felt bad and deleted it.

 

They would probably get a better response with a text message mentioning a 50% discount on Rohypnol.

Steve

 

Nope, that's the one. And it's why most prosecutions fail: as soon as the defence can show that they knew each other, it usually comes down to an argument over consent. Even if the woman has some injuries the defence simply argue that she likes it rough. With one person's word against another, the jury will almost always bring in a Not Guilty verdict. Some serial rapists go to some trouble to not only get to know the woman first, but more importantly, be SEEN to be getting know the woman.


M

 

I assumed most people listened to the news, but your right I may have warned some potential rapists on Scoobynet

 

As mentioned its entrapment. But if the reply is "You deserved it" then take the dirty ******* straight to jail, regardless of their human rights saying they are entitled to a fair trial.

 

cookie

I am disgusted at you flashing me the other day and am in therapy now....what do you have to say for yourself

 

Im sorry, I just couldnt help myself

 

I'll be surprised if its admissable as evidence. Recieving a text froma phone proves you received a text, it does not prove who sent it.

The very fact its the police sending the text in the first place masquerading as the victim is proof of that. The accused could just say "it wasn't me replying, just like it wasn't her texting"


In fact, the person that came up with this idea, is a ****ing idiot.

 

So if they reply to the text message saying "I have no idea what you are talking about" then that helps to clear them then?
Just like admitting it would help to incriminate them.

I doubt it very much ! Can't win !

 

ah ah, so you admit it !!!!

bloody perv

 

My understanding is that it is a proposal, and only a proposal, ATM. It has been done in the US though, which is why it has been suggested for here: if anything US law is far stricter with this sort of thing. And it's easy to get around the "it wasn't me bit": just make sure you send a message that only the accused would understand and know how to reply to. If in doubt, text them again.


M

 

Ahh, that explains why it's a stupid ****ing idea.

 

Will the police still be able to do this if the accused has their phone registered with the MPS?