Tweet
Hi, I often think about how the Police and CPS can improve the situation around Sexual crime. Im talking here mainly from the perspective of someone who was arrested but not charged
It seems absurd to me that someone can be arrested simply on the word of another person, especially considering the massive trauma that results from being arrested.
1) The arrest itself is hugely traumatic, being unexpectedly taken into custody for a sexual crime, swabbed, interviewed. In the short term this is a massive shock to the system and could lead to the most stable people feeling suicidal. It would probably rank as one of the very worst points of someones life and may come with all kinds of ramifications depending on who knows you have been arrested
2) The 'investigation period' which typically is months, sometimes stretching into years for some, especially if there is some work needed to examine computers etc. This time is a sentence in itself as it's hell for anyone to be kept waiting to find out whether their life as they know it, is going to be hit with a massive wrecking ball
3) A record. Whatever way you look at it, a trace is left for enhanced DBS and it may be difficult to do things you could have done previously if you work in a particular field or for some other reason may need to divulge that you had been arrested.
It's plainly unjust for someone to have to go through this situation simply because someone wishes to accuse them. However, I can see the issue that genuine crimes may go unpunished if the police decided not to arrest because it was 'one persons word against another'. So how can the situation be improved.
I dont have the answers, I would love to know what people think, a few ideas/thoughts I have;
1) On point 1, should there be more 'informal chats' before a formal arrest takes place. In many cases it seems that in order for the police to do anything at all, they need to make an arrest first but this comes (as mentioned above) with massive implications. Maybe the police should be permitted to carry out more 'pre-arrest' investigations/interviews to better establish whether an arrest should take place in the first place.
2) There should be a pressure on this time period? In my case, I found out when I got the NFA that certain factors meant that it was headed for NFA pretty much on the day I was arrested, nonetheless the police stretched out their 'investigation' to the end of my bail period so it was 3 months of hell for me before I got the NFA. This investigation involved very little whatsoever, with weeks and weeks going by with no activity at all. should more investment go into the computer forensic field to cut down the unacceptably long wait for computer equipment to be examined?
3) If the alleged crime is NFA, should the CPS/Police have to review whether a trace/record is kept? For example: If someone is accused of dragging someone off the street and raping them and is subsequently NFA, this seems a reasonable reason for keeping a record of the arrest due to severity of the accusation. However, it seems very few accusations are like this. Should they have to look at each case after NFA and determine whether a record is in the interest of the public? or provide some means for people to appeal against the record?
It seems absurd to me that someone can be arrested simply on the word of another person, especially considering the massive trauma that results from being arrested.
1) The arrest itself is hugely traumatic, being unexpectedly taken into custody for a sexual crime, swabbed, interviewed. In the short term this is a massive shock to the system and could lead to the most stable people feeling suicidal. It would probably rank as one of the very worst points of someones life and may come with all kinds of ramifications depending on who knows you have been arrested
2) The 'investigation period' which typically is months, sometimes stretching into years for some, especially if there is some work needed to examine computers etc. This time is a sentence in itself as it's hell for anyone to be kept waiting to find out whether their life as they know it, is going to be hit with a massive wrecking ball
3) A record. Whatever way you look at it, a trace is left for enhanced DBS and it may be difficult to do things you could have done previously if you work in a particular field or for some other reason may need to divulge that you had been arrested.
It's plainly unjust for someone to have to go through this situation simply because someone wishes to accuse them. However, I can see the issue that genuine crimes may go unpunished if the police decided not to arrest because it was 'one persons word against another'. So how can the situation be improved.
I dont have the answers, I would love to know what people think, a few ideas/thoughts I have;
1) On point 1, should there be more 'informal chats' before a formal arrest takes place. In many cases it seems that in order for the police to do anything at all, they need to make an arrest first but this comes (as mentioned above) with massive implications. Maybe the police should be permitted to carry out more 'pre-arrest' investigations/interviews to better establish whether an arrest should take place in the first place.
2) There should be a pressure on this time period? In my case, I found out when I got the NFA that certain factors meant that it was headed for NFA pretty much on the day I was arrested, nonetheless the police stretched out their 'investigation' to the end of my bail period so it was 3 months of hell for me before I got the NFA. This investigation involved very little whatsoever, with weeks and weeks going by with no activity at all. should more investment go into the computer forensic field to cut down the unacceptably long wait for computer equipment to be examined?
3) If the alleged crime is NFA, should the CPS/Police have to review whether a trace/record is kept? For example: If someone is accused of dragging someone off the street and raping them and is subsequently NFA, this seems a reasonable reason for keeping a record of the arrest due to severity of the accusation. However, it seems very few accusations are like this. Should they have to look at each case after NFA and determine whether a record is in the interest of the public? or provide some means for people to appeal against the record?
Comment